Doctor Steuss Posted July 11, 2007 Posted July 11, 2007 e=mc2,If a person is a "partaker" then by defination then that person CAN NOT be omnipotence, omnipotence is about unlimited pwer. By act of partaking that person is limited.Is God the Son limited?
johnny Posted July 11, 2007 Posted July 11, 2007 Doctor Steuss,1) We can become joint-heirs with Christ.YES2) By becoming joint-heirs with Christ, we will share in all that He has (it is not limited).Sons of God are limited because they do not have unlimited power, they are not Almighty or onmipotent.3) Christ created all things, and hypothetically could create more things if He so chose.God created all things through his Son. The Son IS NOT the source of all things, the Father is the source of all things.4) Therefore, by being joint-heirs with Christ, and partaking in His divine nature, and having all hat He has, we will not have the ability to create.By being joint-heirs with Christ we DO NOT become the "whom are all things", the Father alone is the "whom are all things"1Cor.8[6] But to us there is but one God, the Father, of whom are all things, and we in him; and one Lord Jesus Christ, by whom are all things, and we by him.Acts.17[24] God that made the world and all things therein, seeing that he is Lord of heaven and earth, dwelleth not in temples made with hands;[28] For in him we live, and move, and have our being; as certain also of your own poets have said, For we are also his offspring.[29] Forasmuch then as we are the offspring of God, we ought not to think that the Godhead is like unto gold, or silver, or stone, graven by art and man's device.Doctor Steuss,Is God the Son limited?The Son of God was given his power from the Father. The Son IS NOT the source of divinity.
Doctor Steuss Posted July 11, 2007 Posted July 11, 2007 [...]The Son of God was given his power from the Father. The Son IS NOT the source of divinity.So, I'll take this as an admission that God the Son is limited and not co-equal with the G-d the Father.Are you sure you're Catholic?
johnny Posted July 11, 2007 Posted July 11, 2007 Doctor Steuss,So, I'll take this as an admission that God the Son is limited and not co-equal with the G-d the Father.The creeds say equal in glory and that the Father is the Almighty.
Doctor Steuss Posted July 11, 2007 Posted July 11, 2007 Doctor Steuss,The creeds say equal in glory and that the Father is the Almighty."The Father is made of none: neither created nor begotten. The Son is of the Father alone; not made, nor created, but begotten. The Holy Ghost is of the Father and of the Son: neither made, nor created, nor begotten, but proceeding. So there is one Father, not three Fathers; one Son, not three Sons; one Holy Ghost, not three Holy Ghosts. And in this Trinity none is before or after other; none is greater or less than another; But the whole three Persons are coeternal together, and coequal: so that in all things, as is aforesaid, the Unity in Trinity and the Trinity in Unity is to be worshiped. He, therefore, that will be saved must thus think of the Trinity."If, as you say that â??if a person is a â??partakerâ?? then by defin[i ]tion then that person CAN NOT be omnipotence, omnipotence is about unlimited p[o]wer. By act of partaking that person is limited.â? Then, by The Son â??partakingâ? of His power/divinity from the Father (which you admitted to earlier, i.e. â??The Son IS NOT the source of divinityâ?), then following your logic, the Son must necessarily be less than the Father. This is not what the creeds teach.Either you are wrong that a person being a â??partakerâ? limits them, or the creeds are wrong that the Son is not less than the Father. Using your logic, the Son's divinity is limited.Which is it? Are the creeds wrong, or are you wrong?
David Waltz Posted July 11, 2007 Posted July 11, 2007 Hey Johnny,You posted:>>Do you believe the Son has the attribute of Almighty, should the Nicene Creed (see below) state "the Father, the Almighty ... the Son, the Almighty"?>>Me: The Son did not beget Himself, so in a very certain sense God the Father alone is â??Almightyâ?â??yet, there is another sense in which it is appropriate to say that the Son is â??almightâ?, for the Son is omnipotent.Now, the question to you is: how does this affect your theology concerning God the Son?Grace and peace,David
johnny Posted July 11, 2007 Posted July 11, 2007 Doctor Steuss,If, as you say that â??if a person is a â??partakerâ?? then by defin[i ]tion then that person CAN NOT be omnipotence, omnipotence is about unlimited p[o]wer. By act of partaking that person is limited.â? Then, by The Son â??partakingâ? of His power/divinity from the Father (which you admitted to earlier, i.e. â??The Son IS NOT the source of divinityâ?), then following your logic, the Son must necessarily be less than the Father. This is not what the creeds teach.The Son of God DID NOT partake of His power/divinity, before the incarnation he was God. He was God because he was begotten from the source of divinity before his incarnation.Either you are wrong that a person being a â??partakerâ? limits them, or the creeds are wrong that the Son is not less than the Father. Using your logic, the Son's divinity is limited.A man needs to partake of the divine nature to become divinized, a man is not the divine nature(God) before they are born like the Son of God was.
johnny Posted July 11, 2007 Posted July 11, 2007 David Waltz,Me: The Son did not beget Himself, so in a very certain sense God the Father alone is â??Almightyâ?â??yet, there is another sense in which it is appropriate to say that the Son is â??almightâ?, for the Son is omnipotent.Is the Son omnipotent like the Father ... does the Father receive his power from anyone like the Son does?Now, the question to you is: how does this affect your theology concerning God the Son?My theology is that the Father was neither made nor created nor begotten from anyone. The Son was neither made nor created; he was begotten from the Father alone.
Doctor Steuss Posted July 11, 2007 Posted July 11, 2007 Doctor Steuss,The Son of God DID NOT partake of His power/divinity, before the incarnation he was God. He was God because he was begotten from the source of divinity before his incarnation. Keep the goal posts stationary please, I have a tendency towards motion sickness. You stated before that God the Son â??IS NOT the source of divinity.â? If God the Son â??IS NOT the source of divinityâ? then He receives it (or partakes of it) from someone else. There is no way around this. How can these two statements line up?:â??The Son IS NOT the source of divinity.â?andâ??The Son of God DID NOT partake of His power/divinity,â?Answer: They canâ??t.If God the Son is not the source of divinity, then He must necessarily receive it from another source (G-d the Father). If He receives it (i.e. â??partakesâ?) from another source, then according to you, He is â??limited.â?A man needs to partake of the divine nature to become divinized, a man is not the divine nature(God) before they are born like the Son of God was.And? This doesnâ??t change the fact that according to you, if a person is not the source of something (i.e. they have to â??partakeâ?), then they are limited. If the God the Son is not the source of divinity, then he MUST be a partaker. No amount of outlandish logic and silly sophistry gets around this.Edited to add:So, which is it Johnny? If someone is a partaker, are they limited (which would mean that the creeds are wrong -- and Christ is less than the Father)? Or, is someone not limited by being a partaker (which would mean that you are wrong)?
Lachoneus Posted July 11, 2007 Posted July 11, 2007 If you become a God will have the attribute of being Omnipotent?When we become complete as the Father is complete (Matt 5:48), we will have all the same attributes He has. Is the Father omnipotent? Then shall they be gods, because they have no end; therefore shall they be from everlasting to everlasting, because they continue; then shall they be above all, because all things are subject unto them. Then shall they be gods, because they have all power, and the angels are subject unto them. (D&C 132:20) Does the Father know of any other Gods that are Almighty?I do not know what God knows and does not know, other than what He chooses to reveal through his prophets. The Father is omniscient. He is spirit, Plus a body of flesh and bones. The Father has a body of flesh and bones as tangible as man's; the Son also;" (D&C 130:22; Luke 24:39)Just as man is a spirit within a body of flesh and bones. (Gen 2:7; D&C 93:33)
David Waltz Posted July 11, 2007 Posted July 11, 2007 Hello Johnny,You posted:>>My theology is that the Father was neither made nor created nor begotten from anyone. The Son was neither made nor created; he was begotten from the Father alone.>>Me: And this is my theology; something I have clearly stated not only in this thread, but in so many others. As such it puzzles me that you continue to ask questions that are already answeredâ??like the following:>>Is the Son omnipotent like the Father ... does the Father receive his power from anyone like the Son does?>>Me: You have got to already know my answer to this Johnny; as such, is this not a waste of time?Now let me make it clear (AGAIN): I believe that God the Father is the ultimate source of all divinity; He is the FONS TOTIUS DIVINITATIS. Everything apart from God the Father (including God the Son) ultimately owes their existence to Him; as such, God the Father is uniquely THE ONE GOD in a certain sense that none other can claim. God the Son is God by participation in the divinity of God the Father; and Godâ??s adopted Sonâ??s will become Gods by participating in that very same divinity (albeit by grace).Grace and peace,David
johnny Posted July 11, 2007 Posted July 11, 2007 Doctor Steuss,If God the Son is not the source of divinity, then He must necessarily receive it from another source (G-d the Father). If He receives it (i.e. â??partakesâ?) from another source, then according to you, He is â??limited.â?The Son of God "receives" in that he is begotten from the Father, divine nature from divine nature. Men on the other hand are born with a human nature, not a divine nature. The Son of God was God(divine) before his incarnation.If the God the Son is not the source of divinity, then he MUST be a partaker.The Son of God is not a partaker because he has always been the divine nature. The source of the divine nature is the Father, the Son is begotten of the Father. So, which is it Johnny? If someone is a partaker, are they limited (which would mean that the creeds are wrong -- and Christ is less than the Father)? Men are limited because they are partakers, men "become" divine. On the other hand the Son God does not partake because he has always been the divine nature.
johnny Posted July 11, 2007 Posted July 11, 2007 Lachoneus,When we become complete as the Father is complete (Matt 5:48), we will have all the same attributes He has. Is the Father omnipotent? Matt 5:48 is talking about being perfect, being perfect is about being holy and doing the will of the Father. The Father is omnipotent or has unlimited power. In scripture omnipotence is different than perfection.Plus a body of flesh and bones. I would disagree but that is a dicussion for another thread.
Doctor Steuss Posted July 11, 2007 Posted July 11, 2007 Doctor Steuss,The Son of God "receives" in that he is begotten from the Father, divine nature from divine nature. Men on the other hand are born with a human nature, not a divine nature. The Son of God was God(divine) before his incarnation. The fact remains that the divine nature is being received (i.e. â??partakenâ?) from another source. You have already stated that the Son is not the source of Divinity. Again, if He is not the source (as you have already stated, and not recounted), then He is a â??partaker.â? The fact that man has not been a partaker of this Divine nature from eternity does not change anything. Youâ??re trying to move the goal posts again.The Son of God is not a partaker because he has always been the divine nature. The source of the divine nature is the Father, the Son is begotten of the Father. If you canâ??t recognize the blatant contradiction of your above two sentences, then I fear Iâ??m done with this thread. If G-d the Father is the source, then God the Son must be partaking of it. How can someone not be the source of something which they possess and not be a partaker of it? Answer: They canâ??t.Men are limited because they are partakers, men "become" divine. On the other hand the Son God does not partake because he has always been the divine nature.But God the Son is not the source of this divinity. If He is not the source, then He must necessarily be a partaker. Whether this â??partakingâ? (or â??begotteningâ?) has been taking place eternally is negligible. The fact remains that IF HE IS NOT THE SOURCE OF WHAT HE HAS, THEN HE MUST NEEDS BE PARTAKING OF IT FROM SOMEWHERE ELSE.Youâ??re still in the quandary. If God the Son is not the source of divinity, then He must necessarily be receiving it (â??partakingâ?) from G-d the Father. And by your logic (by Him "partaking"), He is thus limited exactly like man will be.Blue 42. Blue 42. Hut-hut-hike (and now you may move your goal posts... again).
LifeOnaPlate Posted July 11, 2007 Posted July 11, 2007 The fact remains that the divine nature is being received (i.e. â??partakenâ?) from another source. You have already stated that the Son is not the source of Divinity. Again, if He is not the source (as you have already stated, and not recounted), then He is a â??partaker.â? The fact that man has not been a partaker of this Divine nature from eternity does not change anything. Youâ??re trying to move the goal posts again.If you canâ??t recognize the blatant contradiction of your above two sentences, then I fear Iâ??m done with this thread. If G-d the Father is the source, then God the Son must be partaking of it. How can someone not be the source of something which they possess and not be a partaker of it? Answer: They canâ??t.But God the Son is not the source of this divinity. If He is not the source, then He must necessarily be a partaker. Whether this â??partakingâ? (or â??begotteningâ?) has been taking place eternally is negligible. The fact remains that IF HE IS NOT THE SOURCE OF WHAT HE HAS, THEN HE MUST NEEDS BE PARTAKING OF IT FROM SOMEWHERE ELSE.Youâ??re still in the quandary. If God the Son is not the source of divinity, then He must necessarily be receiving it (â??partakingâ?) from G-d the Father. And by your logic (by Him "partaking"), He is thus limited exactly like man will be.Blue 42. Blue 42. Hut-hut-hike (and now you may move your goal posts... again).Geez, Steussy, you make my heart love your soul.
johnny Posted July 11, 2007 Posted July 11, 2007 Doctor Steuss,Again, if He is not the source (as you have already stated, and not recounted), then He is a â??partaker.â? I would not say a â??partakerâ? because partake implies according to the lexicon "a partner, sharer". The Son did not need a parter to have the divine nature and he does not share the divine nature with anyone, he is the divine nature. The Son is the fulness of the Godhead.
Doctor Steuss Posted July 11, 2007 Posted July 11, 2007 Geez, Steussy, you make my heart love your soul.I'm pretty sure you'd be the first.I think I've gotten Johnny's line of thought down though:A is the only source for x and has been the source of x for n amount of timeB possess xB has possessed x for n amount of timeC can possess x, at point m, but somehow itâ??s a different x. Why is it different? Well... umm.... because.
LifeOnaPlate Posted July 11, 2007 Posted July 11, 2007 I'm pretty sure you'd be the first.I think I've gotten Johnny's line of thought down though:A is the only source for x and has been the source of x for n amount of timeB possess xB has possessed x for n amount of timeC can possess x, at point m, but somehow itâ??s a different x. Why is it different? Well... umm.... because.Dude. Why try? It's one of the mysteries of the kingdom.[Not the doctrine he espouses, but the fact that anyone can rationally try to reason in that way.]
johnny Posted July 11, 2007 Posted July 11, 2007 David Waltz,Godâ??s adopted Sonâ??s will become Gods by participating in that very same divinity (albeit by grace).Is your view of "become Gods" different than the Mormon's view of "become Gods"?Can God's adopted Son's become a Creator like the Father like the Mormon Church teaches?Can God's adopted Son's become omnipotent with infinite power like the Father?
johnny Posted July 11, 2007 Posted July 11, 2007 Doctor Steuss,I think I've gotten Johnny's line of thought down though:Could you explain your line of thought ...Was there any point in time when the Son of God did not have have the divine nature?Was there any point in time when a man did not the divine nature?
Doctor Steuss Posted July 11, 2007 Posted July 11, 2007 Doctor Steuss,I would not say a â??partakerâ? because partake implies according to the lexicon "a partner, sharer". Fair enough. Given that God the Son gives all glory to G-d the Father, I suppose that they wouldnâ??t exactly be â??a partner, sharerâ? in the truest form of the words. The Son did not need a parter to have the divine nature and he does not share the divine nature with anyone, he is the divine nature. He doesnâ??t share it with anyone? Then why in the world would He promise to make us joint-heirs. I donâ??t know about you, but I think G-d doesnâ??t lie. The Son is the fulness of the Godhead.Yet, the fact still remains (despite another shifting of the goal posts). If He is not the source, He must be receiving it from somewhere else. Someone cannot possess something that they are not the source of without receiving it from elsewhere.Ladies and gentlemen, we present the half-time celebration of Janet Jackson whilst the goal posts are moved to another local.
LifeOnaPlate Posted July 11, 2007 Posted July 11, 2007 Someone cannot possess something that they are not the source of without receiving it from elsewhere.Mysterious!!!!!
johnny Posted July 11, 2007 Posted July 11, 2007 Doctor Steuss,He doesnâ??t share it with anyone? Then why in the world would He promise to make us joint-heirs. I donâ??t know about you, but I think G-d doesnâ??t lie.Sorry I wasn't clear ... when I said "he does not share the divine nature with anyone" ... I meant he does not share the divine nature with the Father or the Holy Ghost because each is God whole and entire. The Son was God (John 1:1).Yet, the fact still remains (despite another shifting of the goal posts). If He is not the source, He must be receiving it from somewhere else. Someone cannot possess something that they are not the source of without receiving it from elsewhere.He is "receiving it" from the fulness of Godhead the dwells within him (Col 2:9).
Doctor Steuss Posted July 11, 2007 Posted July 11, 2007 [...]He is "receiving it" from the fulness of Godhead the dwells within him (Col 2:9).He is receving it from within Himself even though He isn't the source?I guess I'm just going to have to walk away at this point...Been fun.
johnny Posted July 11, 2007 Posted July 11, 2007 Doctor Steuss,He is receving it from within Himself even though He isn't the source?The Father and the Son are distinct, the Father dwelt in the Son.I guess I'm just going to have to walk away at this point...Before you go answer my question from above, I will repeat them below.Was there any point in time when the Son of God did not have have the divine nature?Was there any point in time when a man did not the divine nature?
Recommended Posts
Archived
This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.