/christian/ - Christian Discussion and Fellowship

I should add that even if God were to strip Himself of all His divine attributes, He would still be ontologically God.

Also, I'm not a eastern orthodox and have issues with even certain parts of their theology.

>>721249

idk, these might help

https://philpapers.org/archive/GORCAC-2.pdf

>>721281

Why would divine simplicity lead to pantheism?

>>721251

>I should add that even if God were to strip Himself of all His divine attributes, He would still be ontologically God.

Ha, what? He'd be about as much of a true God as Thor. Not to mention the mere idea of God "stripping" Himself of His attributes is completely incoherent given immutability is one of them.

>>721249

>Because of this things that were an predicated of Christ's divine nature is all attributed to His human nature even though they aren't predicated of His human nature and the things which are predicated of His human nature are attributed to His divine even if they aren't predicated of His divine nature

No. The divine person possesses two natures, and as a consequence of His existence in both of them, He is called by names and titles which are proper of only one nature. Hence, when Paul says they crucified the Lord of Glory, he is not attributing crucifixion to the divine nature even in a purely semantical way, but to the divine nature, of whom it is proper to say He was crucified only in His flesh.

>Anselm described God as that which nothing greater can be conceived but by that logic, Christ ceased to be God while on earth as well as being the fact that the Father is greater than Him (in rank) so anslem again would have conclude that Jesus isn't God

If Anselm did say that, no one should consider him a saint

>If the Son can not know something then we must conclude that there is no simplicity between God's essence and attributes

Anon, I want you to realize now you aren't calling divine simplicity into question, you're calling homoousias into question. Not only in God, but in all things, a difference in essential attributes is a difference in essence, and omniscience is most certainly an essential attribute, as it is a defining characteristic of God. The fact is there is no literal interpretation of this verse that is at all compatible with definitional orthodox Christian doctrine. But the immediate and historical contexts show that what Jesus is doing is allegorically invoking ancient Jewish marriage customs, not denying His own omniscience.

>If you are to hold to divine simplicity you then have to conclude that Christ was not God

What

>It is not His attributes or power that make Him the greatest conceivable thing but rather His very nature

I don't think you have a clue what these terms mean.

>would like to know your opinions.

My opinion is that you haven't studied enough

>>721303

>but to the divine nature

divine person*

>>721281

Not OR, but Interesting watch. Thanks.

>>721303

Hi, thanks for responding to my post. I'll use this opportunity to better explain myself and to give my critique of some of your answers.

>Ha, what? He'd be about as much of a true God as Thor.

I disagree, I'm trying to go off of biblical definitions and not scholastic ones. When I read the bible it leads me to the conclusion God's identity is not tied to His attributes. But again, I could be wrong and if so I hope someone in this thread can explain to me why.

>The divine person possesses two natures, and as a consequence of His existence in both of them, He is called by names and titles which are proper of only one nature.

I'm not quite following the logic here. So Christ kept His full divine prerogatives, omniscience, omnipotence and omnipresence but now had another nature attached on to it? I hope you realise the logical issues with this belief. If one of God's inseparable attributes is His immutablity then Christ was both immutable and not. It would mean He was both perfect and not perfect, in the sense that He would be a finite being and a none finite being at the same time. But how is this possible. We must conclude that Christ have up some of His divine attributes in order to make sense of biblical passages such as Philippians 2:6-7:

<Who, existing in the form of God, did not consider equality with God something to be grasped, but emptied Himself, taking the form of a servant, being made in human likeness.

You now have to define in what way did He empty Himself because to you He emptied nothing but simply took up a new nature along with the one He had already.

>Hence, when Paul says they crucified the Lord of Glory, he is not attributing crucifixion to the divine nature even in a purely semantical way, but to the divine nature,

Doesn't really make any sense to me. It seems like a case of eisegesis. Instead of just saying it means this prove to me that is does because to me Paul is very clearly is attributing Christ's human nature to His divine. I want a more adequate answer.

>If Anselm did say that, no one should consider him a saint

It's the 6th premise of his ontological argument as seen here: https://plato.stanford.edu/entries/ontological-arguments/#StAnsOntArg

>Anon, I want you to realize now you aren't calling divine simplicity into question, you're calling homoousias into question.

Wrong, I have never once denied Christ's divinity. I am denying the belief in divine simplicity that holds the view that God's attributes are tied to His being. This, currently to me, seems biblically wrong since by that definition Christ ceased to be God on earth since we know that He had lost some of His divine attributes.

>Not only in God, but in all things, a difference in essential attributes is a difference in essence, and omniscience is most certainly an essential attribute, as it is a defining characteristic of God.

Ok, this is a good point and I understand the implications of it. Perhaps only in the case of God is to possibly for Him to lose His attributes yet still remain God as per exodus 3:14:

<But concerning that day and hour no one knows, not even the angels of heaven, nor the Son, but the Father only.

Maybe this is only unique to God. But still, this does not answer the points I have raised and still brings into question the belief in divine simplicity.

>The fact is there is no literal interpretation of this verse that is at all compatible with definitional orthodox Christian doctrine.

This right is is a none argument if I've ever seen one. So what? You're practically admitting defeat here. Perhaps you need to make some tweaks in your theology or it just might be wrong. The answer seems simple to me. Matthew is very clear.

Cont

>>721303

Cont

>But the immediate and historical contexts show that what Jesus is doing is allegorically invoking ancient Jewish marriage customs, not denying His own omniscience.

Yeah, I watched that inspiringphilosophy video many years ago and it's laughable although a good and interesting attempt at answering a very difficult verse. One thing we again have to bear in mind that the lack of knowledge here is being attributed to Christ's divine nature similar to how Paul attributes Christ's crucifixion to His divine nature also. It says the "Son", divine title, did not known the day or hour so that throws out the idea that it's just Christ's human side that didn't know as well as the fact that Christ here is simply answering a question about the last day. Also, assuming you're a Catholic, this interpretation of it being about Jewish marriage customs is contrary to the historic Catholic interpretation. Even Aquinas would not have answered it this way rather he interpreted it the way historically the early church fathers have. And that interpretation you used is made up by a protestant. So which is it? Your infallible tradition and church or a online protestants interpretation which ccontradicts your own tradition?

>What

You heard what I said

>I don't think you have a clue what these terms mean.

>My opinion is that you haven't studied enough

Ok, fair enough. I made this thread to seek answers because I'm sceptical of my own knowledge. Got any links, articles or resources I can read to deepen my knowledge?

>divine simplicity

just become a Monist if you're this gullible.

>>721373

you don't know what divine simplicity is

>>721375

Absolute divine simplicity = modalism. repent.

>>721399

Why not explain your position?

>>721348

>I'm trying to go off of biblical definitions and not scholastic ones

You're not going off "biblical definitions", you're going off non-existent ones. Understand that separating God's identity from who He is isn't an alternative perspective, it's just a complete non sequitur. You're saying God could stop being any of the things that make Him God, even stop existing, and yet still be ontologically God. Why do I need to point out that's just self-contradictory nonsense?

>I hope you realise the logical issues with this belief

Why are you standing in judgement over the ancient christology as if you can and finding it wanting because it doesn't tickle your philosophical fancy? It's like when William Lane Craig rejects dyothelitism.

>If one of God's inseparable attributes is His immutablity then Christ was both immutable and not

Yes, He was, but in two different ontologies. He was both a man and God, neither nature confounding the other, but both coming together in hypostatic union. One and the same person, equally man and God, existing equally in both natures, but with no mixture between them, so that though each is equally Him, what affects one does not affect the other, except inasmuch as it affects Him.

>He was both perfect and not perfect

This does not follow, because His created nature was perfect because it was everything God wanted it to be, which is a meaningful use of perfect and the only way the word could ever be properly applied to a creature.

>But how is this possible

Perhaps you should spend more time with early fathers than modernist philosophers

>We must conclude that Christ have up some of His divine attributes

Any who concludes thus should not consider himself a Christian, but under the anathema of God.

>You now have to define in what way did He empty Himself

If you ever had any interest in orthodox doctrine, you should already know the orthodox interpretation, so I am inclined to consider you a case of Galatians 2:4. Christ emptied Himself, not as you would blasphemous have it by ceasing to be God, a notion opposed to every syllable of the bible, but as other versions have it, He "made himself of no reputation", and made Himself a little lower than the angels, not in ontology, but in status, as God condescended and became like us, and did not shun our state, but embraced it that He might redeem us, even without surrendering any of what was already His.

>Instead of just saying it means this prove to me that is does because to me Paul is very clearly is attributing Christ's human nature to His divine

The divine nature is not an impersonal abstract thing. God's essence is existence, and He exists in three persons. Jesus Christ is a divine person. He is God. He, not some abstract concept of ousia, but He, is the Lord of Glory. And when He became flesh, He did not simply create some man other than Himself and control him, but He was Himself made flesh, and He was truly a man. It was in His flesh alone that He was crucified, and therefore, the man they crucified was the Lord of Glory.

>Wrong, I have never once denied Christ's divinity

Oh, you did more than just deny it, you've just made a whole post assailing it.

>by that definition Christ ceased to be God on earth since we know that He had lost some of His divine attributes

"We" don't know that, but if Christ lost any of His attributes, He most certainly stopped being the God He was. The term homoousias conveys total identicality, so even if the Son were only to lose His omniscience, He would be of a different substance than the Father, because there would be essential difference between them.

>So what?

So you are completely devoid of faith in the true God and Christ of the bible, and apparently proud of that fact.

>You're practically admitting defeat here

Actually I was operating on the clearly wrong assumption that you had any interest in being even remotely orthodox.

>>721349

>it's laughable

Spoken like a true heathen. Are you aware that analogies of comparing the return of Jesus Christ to a marriage ceremony are found consistently throughout the New Testament, from the Gospels to Paul to Revelation?

>the idea that it's just Christ's human side that didn't know

That is not an orthodox interpretation and would contradict everything I've been saying about Christ's nature.

>Also, assuming you're a Catholic

Your assumption is wrong.

>Got any links, articles or resources I can read to deepen my knowledge?

Well given the extreme heresy you've uttered which would scandalize even a simple believer I'd say the Holy Bible, read it cover to cover, and do not pretend it wages war on its own teachings like you are right now.

>>721399

Jay plz go

>>721422

Embarrassing. You're starting off with a philosophy then reading it back into the bible even when I've given you plain biblical evidence proving otherwise.

>You're not going off "biblical definitions", you're going off non-existent ones.

What? I've given you verse after verse and all you have done is ignore them. What more do you want?

>Why are you standing in judgement over the ancient christology as if you can and finding it wanting because it doesn't tickle your philosophical fancy?

OMG! It's amazing coming from a guy who based his interpretation of the bible off of scholastic definitions of God. Embarrassing! You claim that I have a philosophical fancy but your cranium can't understand that I simply seek to understand the bible. I do not have a philosophical fancy at all. I simply read and come to a conclusion. You're the one who disagrees with me, not based on biblical reasons, but your own philosophical fancy. And if You think that I stand in judgement over the ancient church then prove to me, from the bible, why I'm wrong. You're authority means nothing If it can't even give me a biblical basis for it's belief.

>It's like when William Lane Craig rejects dyothelitism.

Oh my God it, gets worse! Can you hear yourself? William lane Craig has a PhD in philosophy. The main reason he rejects any teaching is because it does not fit into his philosophical frame work. I have none. All I do is read and see if the philosophical frame work fits into divine scripture, not to see if divine scripture can be forced to fit into my philosophical framework. God, you're dense!

>what affects one does not affect the other, except inasmuch as it affects Him.

The fact that it things which affect His human side also are attributed to His divine side proves that Christ lost some of His divine attributes you idiot! Read 1 Corinthians 2:8 again and Matthew 24:36. And before you say anything silly like it was only His human side, then explain why it refers to His divine name.

>This does not follow, because His created nature was perfect because it was everything God wanted it to be

Yep, you ignored everything I said. I defined what I meant by perfect in this instance. It was that He was both eternal and temporal.

>Perhaps you should spend more time with early fathers than modernist philosophers

What modernist philosophers, huh? Tell me now! You're accusing me of something and you better have some proof.

>Any who concludes thus should not consider himself a Christian, but under the anathema of God.

Doesn't make any sense.

>If you ever had any interest in orthodox doctrine, you should already know the orthodox interpretation

Idiot

>Galatians 2:4

Talking about cathodox. And since you are one and believe in that hesychasm nonsense, Colossians 2:8 applies to you.

>Christ emptied Himself, not as you would blasphemous have it by ceasing to be God, a notion opposed to every syllable of the bible, but as other versions have it,

Again with the idiocracy. You make bald statements such as "opposed to every syllable of the bible" yet can't even defend your position. I'm fact you tried to say that Matthew was about ancient Jewish marriage customs and I've proved you wrong and now you just dropped the entire point. You're admitting defeat already.

>Oh, you did more than just deny it, you've just made a whole post assailing it.

We define God differently. My view is biblically based, and before you simply say "nu uh" give me the biblical evidence for your position.

>We" don't know that,

So then your faith is on shaky ground because you believe that God's identity is tied with His attributes and if He were to lose it He would cease to be God.

>So you are completely devoid of faith in the true God and Christ of the bible

You're a slow person mentally so I will.go slowly. My point is it doesn't matter what your church says if they don't have a biblical basis for their definition of God. That's why I said so what. It means nothing If your church fathers day something unless they can prove it biblically.

>>721422

>Spoken like a true heathen

Is that your rebuttal? Very convincing.

>Are you aware that analogies of comparing the return of Jesus Christ to a marriage ceremony are found consistently throughout the New Testament, from the Gospels to Paul to Revelation?

Post the evidence then.

I'm sorry for seeming so hot headed but your reply has really frustrated me. I wanted a good honest discussion from someone who understand my point of view, explain why it is wrong, which you have half done and don't assume that I don't appreciate it, and then give biblical basis for his view. But the latter part you have failed miserably.

Don't even reply to this post unless you're actually gonna give me biblical evidence of divine simplicity.

I have a tiny IQ and the posts in this thread are anything but simple. What is "divine simplicity" ?

Also, OP, I miss having a job where I can think about whatever all day. My current job forces me to use my brain and it sucks.

>>723832

http://edwardfeser.blogspot.com/2010/09/classical-theism.html

>>723835

That only makes it more convoluted…

Thank you though.

>>723844

easiest tip I can give:

God is the creator and is outside of creation. He is immutable and changeless, He is not subject to anything outside of Himself. As such, He has no particular characteristics of His own creation in His person-hood as God, the Father.

I AM THE I AM