I don't think that this analogy is appropriate.
I don't see any good support for this.
No, Lon! No! I won't put up with it. You know as well as I do that Open Theism has NOTHING in common with Mormonism that isn't superficial or purely coincidental and you bringing it up was an attempt to smear us as though we are somehow associated with that idiotic cult.
Plausible deniability doesn't fly with me, Lon. When we are done here everyone is going to hear from you that you should never had made the assinine comment to begin with or you and I are done.
BULL!!!!
It aught to have offended you deeply! Mormonism is EXTREMELY EVIL and those that fall for it's foolishness will deserve the Hell they end up in. Any association they have with Christianity has to do with their own intentional lies and I, for one, am not going to permit you to get away with propagating additional similar lies and in anyway associate me with that despicable group of people.
I've already told you more than once to keep your mouth shut about things you know nothing about.
I do not believe you.
I doubt that any such dialogue ever actually took place. If it did, whoever participated was a fool.
A topic I'm no longer interested in discussing with you until you fully and unambiguous recant this grossly insulting association between me and anything remotely associated with the Mormon cult.
You are laughably stupid.
I would agree.
Why?
The only way they are alike is in that when you add one to the other, you end up with one thing.
I see no support for the contrary and I showed you at least some support for it. Jesus is one singular person and we have His own testimony that HE (i.e. not merely His body or even His "humanity") died and rose from the dead. God the Father conceived Jesus in Mary's womb and by that fact alone, Jesus is every bit as much a human being as He is God the Son. He truly is 100% God and human.
On the contrary. The more I think about it, the more I'm convinced that I am right. Jesus does not have two natures, He has one and only one. God has always existed and that same God became a human being, whom we call Jesus and is now the divine human being, the God-man.
Right, but the question is formed in the same way as Gen 3:9.
Because I don't believe that the attributes of "divine nature and human nature" are comparable with "eggs and flour".
You have not establish how "divine nature and human nature" are able to be combined in a similar fashion to "eggs and flour".
Indeed.
One is certainly similar to the other in that one was created in the image of the other. Does that mean that they can be "mixed" into one? Still don't see how that is established.
Again, Jesus is BOTH God and human... i.e., TWO things in one person and not two things that have become one thing. One person... no doubt.
So the "second" nature is no longer second?
I completely agree that Jesus is the God-man. God AND man... BOTH.
I think you're over-reacting (again). Even Lon's link explains that Mormons (at least the one writing the article) don't accept Open Theism:
I think there's a point to @Clete's assertion, in that Jesus is God, but no longer in exactly the same way as the Father is God. He is a creature and creator at the same time...and cannot ever NOT be a creature again. Oil and water can be unmixed. Even two types of flour could be unmixed. But the eggs and flour join together in a way that can't be undone (especially if they are cooked together).
Tired. Saying it is so regardless.Uh..... No, it's not.
sustain | Etymology of sustain by etymonline
"provide the necessities of life to;" by early 14c. as "give support to (an effort or… See origin and meaning of sustain.www.etymonline.com
Saying it doesn't make it so.
:doh: All of those mean 'sustain.' You just like arguing to argue. You were wrong and you know it.
Be changed by truth, don't entrench with your fingers in your ears. Don't be arguing 'just' to argue. There is no point to this dialogue or interjection.
Note that "creature AND creator" are TWO things. So again, Jesus took on a second nature. So Jesus now has TWO natures in ONE person. Jesus is now and will always be the God-man (i.e., God AND man).
Still... I don't think that these things can be compared to a divine nature and a human nature.
(with a good heart) All on you. You just are not reading my mind and this paragraph is 100% of where my statement came from: I meant no 'guilty by association.' Reread: the statement was about 'who doesn't hold to omni's.' Next? I apologized, and I meant it but please don't look for apology for 'intent.' It was not my intent to disparage but to 'categorize' between groups. I realize it looks like guilty by association. Look, you've called me a Calvinist many times. I suppose I didn't take it as offense because I don't dislike them and have some Calvinistic theology whether you meant it guilty by association or not. Do I care? No, except where I need to correct you and I've done so on the difference (I'm at least with you with double-pred Calvinists). Please 1) accept my apology (it was sincere). 2) Try not to read my mind. I believe you are projecting your problems with Mormons upon my intent (best guess how we got here). I was simply and only tying 'like categories.' 3) Again, forgive, I understand (I think), why "Mormon" is not acceptable. I haven't really thought about a need to avoid 'cults' in comparisons. My mind works literally like this: "Who else doesn't believe in Omnis?" and I couldn't (don't think there are any) think of one other Christian group besides Mormons, thus "Open Theists and Mormons." On top of that, it was readily available for comparison specifically because every prominent Open Theist author/theologian is in dialogue still, with Mormons. Because of that, you've actually surprised me! I actually, to this point, believed that Open Theists like Mormons. Seriously.
Supra. If you want to die on this hill, I'll let you. 1) I apologized, but I'm not going to plead guilty to something I didn't do. I certainly do apologize this has become a mess but 2) I am not guilty of the full accusation, just in the collateral harm. It is I who am guilty by association on this one, you are assuming I meant something disparaging but reread. They only drawn connection (and there are more than just this in the articles I've read of ongoing dialogue between Open Theists and Mormons that frankly puzzles and captures my investigative mind). . Clete, I'm being totally honest with you: I did not intend to malign. I was literally trying to think of categorical groups: Those who hold to Omnis and those who do not. And yet again, I'm sorry for this aftermath. Not my intent.
Possible, but not for the 'reason.' It might be why it readily came to mind but honestly, it had more to do with my research into the founding Open Theists and the yet ongoing associations and correspondence all of them have with LDS. It is so significant that this readily is yet an attachment my mind has between Open Theists and Mormonism. It is incredibly notable. That said, please: I'm sorry! Is there something of intent to be disparaging? Theologically I am concerned about both but I also need to say this: I believe Open Theists are believers and Mormons are not. Because of the overarching difference, I can readily admit any connection between Open Theism and Mormonism is superficial. That said, I may start a thread on why the major players in Open Theism are in ongoing dialogue, even going to each others conferences, between Open Theist and Mormons. Clearly there is a connection that greatly troubles you in the category of Guilty-by-Association. I appreciate your strong aversion and will be careful in the future. It is something I have to remember and I'm prayerful that I will not bring up this association, with you, ever again.
Appreciate that. I believe they are like Samaritans with Jesus. They were despised/they are despised. I used to have a similar reaction but God has been working on my heart: I've tried to tell them clearly and compassionately that there is are huge differences with empathy. Wicked? Yes, anything that keeps one from the gospel. Different conversation, but I agree. This is all catching a bit on the surreal side because of the attention. I will try again with apology. I believe I've even been guilty of the accusation in the past. I'm just trying to say "not this time." At the very least, I think I can say "I think I should have known better." It wasn't the intention, as you can see there are a lot of other factors that went into my statement, but I think I have to own 'some' of this. Again, not the intent, but in the background? Yes. It wasn't the part that came into play at this time, but on the backburner.
So I'm asking.
I honestly wouldn't have known this about you and appreciate it.I fully and unambiguously recant the implication as it wasn't the intention. I do indeed recant the insult to you by association. I honestly didn't know (should have suspected?) that any Open Theist was this antiMormon. Truly. Apologies.
Note that "creature AND creator" are TWO things. So again, Jesus took on a second nature. So Jesus now has TWO natures in ONE person. Jesus is now and will always be the God-man (i.e., God AND man).
Still... I don't think that these things can be compared to a divine nature and a human nature.
(this too seems off the beaten path of God's Morality, but I'm appreciating the direction and believe it extremely important)
Omnis come from the standpoint of 'all that is' isn't co-eternal with God. As humans, the universe is all we know but God is 'all' there is and much more than simply this piece of His creative work (universe) so the omnis are a way of trying to grasp God's statements:
If God is 'everything that exists' what is the limitation? "Sin" is the first answer, but sin isn't part of creation, it is the destruction of it.
Not an obfuscation but a desire to describe more correctly not what God 'isn't' but what He is. When we are talking about a limitation, we generally mean a 'weakness.' Personal problem? No, this is why theologians have avoided such language in preference for understanding God in a 'fuller' context. Scripture says very clearly that God is beyond our ability, thus a 'limitation' is problematic for comparison to a God that 'exceeds.' How often does 'limitation' come up in conversation? Philippians 2 absolutely expresses a 'limitation' in love. We want to be careful we aren't so caught up in our own egocentrism, that we begin to think "God 'has' to have limitations in order to relate to me." Limitation is true, but in a voluntary manner and not at all a condition upon His relation. He came in the flesh, in order to bring us ascended, not Him descended. Whenever you see 'a personal problem' it will be likely from this concern.
Again, it isn't truth, but the phrasing and problematic comparison, analogy. Example: I'm currently on a doctor directed diet. You can ask "what don't you get to eat? (limitation). Better: What do you get to eat? (what are you not limited from eating). If this doesn't make sense we can be done with this portion. I've a 'personal' aversion to 'limitation' when discussing God, partly because I'm nobody, just an incredibly limited creature, to qualify God's limitations (usually a negative). He is the One to do that, if He so desires. So perhaps it really is a personal problem, but I'll keep it. It feels a little like my dialogue with Clete, oddly enough. There are certain things that can become hot potatoes to another. "Limitation" regarding God, to me is a negative and certainly restrictive in language, for a God who is "able to do more than we can think or imagine." "Limitation" seems like a downer is talking in light of something much larger in discussion when we are to 'discover the height, breadth, and depth of God's love for us, that is beyond measure!"
Yet He does know about unicorns, and goblins, and Frankenstein. Point: If we make a statement that doesn't always work, then we aren't on the right track for description. I understand why Open Theism does this but I'm questioning the need that mostly only comes for an Open paradigm.
As with incarnation, it is a chosen limitation. It makes a difference: You and I 'cannot.' God 'will not' and thus limitation generally is a term for us that means 'unable' but for God means 'not can't but didn't or chose not to.' This too is why I don't believe limitation the best descriptor nor the best focus for talking about God.
This too, is a discussion mostly on definitions and the place for certain definitions. Sin isn't on the table with God's attributes was the original.
You have the traditional view of omnipresence here. "How" has elements both of Open paradigms and Arminian from you to date.
I agreed with you in discussion with Clete. You'll likely always be an Open Theist of a different color with Arminian hold-outs as it were, I'd think.
"Sometimes" rather, (I appreciate irony but take the criticism as good, you are correct). No, I'm just a random. My mind goes 100 miles an hour and it evident. My first drafts are rarely gems. I did graduate an MA with a very high score, but had to really work at it.
It was a proposition to be inspected. Does it hold as true? Any scriptures come to mind? For me, this is where the two ideas merged: Analogy and description is difficult for the dual nature of the Lord Jesus Christ and for me, the same with trying to distinguish 'how' the Father and Spirit (and Son) are unique. That said, it was random.
So, my question is (was), "How then, are Spirit and Father distinct. Consider 1) the Holy Spirit is subordinate to the Father, not in position but in bidding. 2) The jobs they carry are different. 3)? It seems off topic, now that you bring it up but I do think God's nature is worth exploring, definitely a side trail.
Help? The oneness of the Triune God isn't disputed between you and I. Let me attack it with "and These Three are One." Granted not in some bibles but between us I don't think there is dispute. Rather, because I agree with you that analogy like eggs and flour do not work because of their physical nature, specifically because the Father and Holy Spirit are spirit. It may not help with a discussion about the Lord Jesus Christ's dual nature at all, however. Meh, I'm tired, thus prone to my randomness. Good call.
Okay, fine. Don't use it. It doesn't matter. It has no effect on the doctrine anyway, so if you want to believe that God already knew the answer to His question then that's no skin off my nose. At the end of the day it makes no difference one way or the other because our doctrine is not based on such passages anyway but rather on passages such as....
That isn't an answer. Why aren't they compatible? It wasn't those two things I was comparing anyway, it was the fact that when you mix them together in a bowl, you are left with a lump of dough (one thing) rather than a bowl with two things in it. The fact that I picked eggs and flour is incidental. It could have been a thousand different things that one might mix together to make something else.
How it is done is not the question but rather whether it was done. I have no idea how it was done. I just see no reason to believe that Jesus has two natures. Jesus is Jesus, He has His nature. It is different now than it was before. What was Spirit is now Spirit filled flesh. What was divine is now divinely human. We agree that His humanity was added but I don't see that it remained separate but that it become a fully integrated part of His nature.
Well, this is the question, isn't it? Is Jesus this bifurcated being with two separate unmixed natures that are as incompatible as oil and water?
Established? Perhaps not but it is certainly no less established than is the notion that there are these two, at least semi-incompatible, natures within Christ.
I don't see how that is established.
Definitely!
Huh?
Why not both, the two become one?
Well, neither of us has to be convinced by the other on this, right. It's enjoyable to hash out a disagreement, no matter how minor, with someone I respect and who can articulate themselves with clarity and substance.
I don't think so!
Then why bring it up in the first place?
No one compares Open Theism to Mormonism because they both believe that God exists. No one compares Open Theism to Mormonism because they both accept the fact that someone named Jesus died on a cross. There are a thousand possible parallels one might draw between Mormonism and any actual Christian sect. Mormons believe in getting water baptized is required for salvation. Should we therefore look at the Church of Christ with squinted eyes because of their similar doctrine?
The entire point is that it is NOT legitimate! It's asinine! It's nothing at all but a smear and it's insulting and I will not put up with it.
Mormons are evil cultist. It is no more legitimate to have such a discussion with them than it would be to have a similar discussion with a Scientologist or with a Branch Davidian.
Paul never talked about pagan religions as though there were on even ground with Christianity or that they were a different flavor of the same. Mormons are not Christians - AT ALL! So long as that is the context of the discussion then interacting with Mormons is perfectly acceptable thing to do.
He doesn't believe it, Derf! It was a smear!
STUPIDITY!