Quote:
Originally Posted by Drake
Trapped> "Okay then, if this is the same opposing mechanism by which God became a man, then what you are saying is that in order for God to become a man, man had to communicate some communicable attributes to God."
Trapped,
I did not say this at all. I read your post 2.5 times and this is where the train of your argument jumped the tracks. So we'd best return to the Scripture as Robert exhorts.
John 1:1, 14 says that God, the eternal Word, the Only-Begotten was incarnated to be a man. Incarnation did not affect what God is in His eternal essence. In some way according to His transcendence and otherness, He made it work. Perhaps one day we'll understand it but until that day ants will merely speculate with each other how humans can ride bikes.
Since we both agree for this dialogue that Jesus is the incarnated God, the eternal Word made flesh, the Only-Begotten Son of God of the Divine Trinity, then we should be in complete agreement that incarnation did not affect His Godhead, Godhood, transcendence, or otherness.
Are we in agreement on that?
Drake
|
Drake,
Here is where my logic was, which I now realize I did not actually explain in enough detail:
Your explanation seemed to be "there is a mechanism we don't know by which God became a man. That same unknown mechanism is what is used for man to become God."
God became man / A --> B
Man becomes God / B --> a (little "a" to signify without Godhead)
The --> symbol is the mechanism.
However, you then actually discussed the
--> mechanism for the
man becomes God in L/N and not in Gh part of the cycle. You described
--> as God communicating His communicable attributes to man. I.e., this is the mechanism by which man becomes God (in L/N but not in Gh). This green side of the cycle is therefore not unknown.
And if we know the mechanism of one direction, your explanation is that it's the same mechanism that occurred for the other direction. I applied the same principle by simply switching the parties since it's in the "reverse" direction, which is where I got the statement you disagree with.
As I write all that, I am now wondering......are you saying, rather, that the
--> mechanism is ALSO God communicating His communicable attributes to man? In other words:
God communicates His communicable attributes to man = God becomes man
God communicates His communicable attributes to man = man becomes God (that much you have stated outright)
Is that what you're saying? It's the same thing in both directions?
Trapped
P.S. I am in agreement that your argument is that when God became a man, it did not affect His Godhead/Godhood/God-ness at all. That's the foundation of your argument, and I comprehend it. Obviously I don't agree with it, but that is not the argument for this thread. The "Is God a Trinity" thread was special permission and I'm confining my thoughts on it to that thread only. I am just interested in your own logic on this other topic, and if your own logic holds itself up as well as holds up to scripture after that point (my disagreement with your foundational starting point aside). In my inquiry, I'm working within the closed framework of your viewpoint. I'm just trying to understand your train of thought.