Dualism

Participant

Hi,

Mormons, Jehovah's Witnesses, and eastern spirituality seem to deny that God is completely different than creation. Mormons seem to believe that God is a space alien. In my conversation with David, it seems that Jehovah's Witnesses believe that God is the same type of being as the angels, a spirit, only much more powerful -an enormous difference in power, but still a matter of degree, not a difference in kind. And eastern religions hold to some sort of pantheism, that God is the universe, and there is no difference. These are all examples of monism, the doctrine that in the broadest sense, there is only one class of thing, creation.

In contrast, the Bible asserts dualism, the doctrine that God is completely other than creation. This is taught at the very beginning of the Bible: In the beginning, God created the heavens and the earth. This proposes an intrinsice difference between God and creation. Heaven and earth are used in the Bible to denote all of creation. The heavens are God's throne, and the earth is His footstool. Heaven and earth will pass away, but God's word will not pass away. And Hebrews 1:11-12 says the heavens will perish and be changed, but God remains the same.

It should be fairly obvious to students of the Bible that God is intrinsically different than creation. He is a Spirit, and the angels are called spirits, but does that make them the same type of being? I think not, for Paul draws a fundamental distinction between the Creator and the creature in Romans 1:25.

Given that God is a being completely other than creation, we are left with the task of assigning Jesus to one of these two categories. We are told that His words will not pass away, unlike heaven and earth. The heavens change, but Jesus is the same yesterday, today, and forever. How can the words of a creature outlast God's creation? How can a creature be the same forever, when we are told that the heavens will be changed? Hebrews 1:11-12.

It is clear that Jesus is completely different from the creation, and there is only one Being outside of creation, God. Jesus is God.

Tim

May 13, 2007 at 5:34 am#51974

Participant

Hi Tim2,
Then who is the one spoken of as Father of this God?

May 21, 2007 at 4:03 am#52754

Participant

David has argued on the “What about John 1:1?” forum that the angels share in the divine nature with God, and that this could be what John 1:1 is saying about the Word. He recently said this:

Quote

I too argue for the uniqueness of Jehovah. I argue it even more than you do. He is completely unique, without comparison to anyone. He is above all, almighty, king of eternity, with no equal.
BUT THIS DOESN'T MEAN he is completely different from every other being in every way possible, does it? There are some similarities. We were made in the image of God, right? Other beings can share similarities of a sort.
Take the fact that I can't see Jehovah. I can see you. I can see this calculator. I can seet his pencil. I can't see angels. I can see this pen. i can see myself. I can't see Jesus. I can see…

Did you notice that there are two groups–the invisible group–spirits.
and the visible group–everything else.

Everything that I can see and touch shares one common nature–they're physcial substances made out of atoms.
Everything else in that string of things also has a common nature–a divine godlike nature–they're spirits. I can't see them. They live in the spirit realm.

First I would say that there are many different ways of classifying things, but which is the most appropriate? If, as you say, YHWH is completely unique, wouldn't the most basic classification for everything be, YHWH and not YHWH? I think this is where we should start. And given this distinction, Jesus is clearly YHWH, for all things are through and for YHWH (Romans 11:36), and all things are through Jesus (1 Corinthians 8:6), and for Jesus (Colossians 1:16). All things that are the Father's are the Son's (John 16:15). The Word of YHWH stands forever (Isaiah 40:8), as does the Word of Jesus (Mark 13:31). If you read Deutero-Isaiah (Isaiah 40-66), you will find many praises that are unique to YHWH that are ascribed to Jesus in the New Testament (Savior, Rock, First and Last, etc.) See the Trinity Verses thread.

Next, I don't think it is right to establish a doctrine concerning God based on the classification of all things as either visible or invisible, for Paul distinguishes between these things and their Creator in Colossians 1:16, taking us back to the God and creation distinction that dualism proposes.

I also object to this type of distinction on logical grounds. It is true that everything is either visible or not visible, but this is no basis for understanding God. It's also true that all things are either a pencil or not a pencil, but this is useless for understanding God. The reason is that dualism proposes that God is not everything. Is He a pencil? No. Is He an angel? No. Is He a Spirit? Yes. But, as you agree, I think, He is not the same type of Spirit that the angels are.

My point is that the only comparison you can make between God and anything in creation is that they both might not be something. God and Tim are not a pencil. God and the angels are not visible. And so forth with everything. This is useless because it tells us nothing about God.

And I really do think you can't ascribe any common attributes, other than the obvious negative ones, to God and creation. I thought about the most basic attribute, existence, but in consideration of Exodus 3:14, I don't think we can compare the existence of God to the existence of creation. God's existence is eternal, imperishable, and necessary; whereas creation has a beginning and an end, and it exists only by the good pleasure of God. Thus, I think we can say God is completely other, existing in a way incomparable with everything else.

Finally, I must object to your equating of invisible with the divine nature. I don't see a basis for this in Scripture. The heavenly bodies and invisible things are discussed often in Scripture, but nowhere do I see them called theios. Also, I would argue that God is invisible in a way far more fundamental than the angels, for no one has seen God, but people see angels throughout the Bible.

Tim

May 21, 2007 at 4:26 am#52758

Participant

“Dualism” – goodness. I'll add that to my list of ever-growing, non-biblical terms to describe our dear Lord Jesus and God.

I wonder how pleased God would be to know that he and his beloved son are being reduced to an “ism”?

May 21, 2007 at 10:01 am#52773

david

Participant

Quote

….it seems that Jehovah's Witnesses believe that God is the same type of being as the angels, a spirit, only much more powerful -an enormous difference in power, but still a matter of degree, not a difference in kind.

I didn't really say there is “not a difference in kind.”

But, what kind of being is God–a spirit being or a fleshly being?
What kind of being are the angels–spirit beings or fleshly beings?

So, at the very least, WE CAN SAY that the angels and God share something in common, something that we humans, we fleshly humans do not share. They have the same…what shall we call it…invisible beingness…no, they have the same kind of … um, nature?
And we do not share that nature.

But some will…

1 JOHN 3:2
“Beloved ones, now we are children of God, but as yet yet it has not been made manifest what we shall be. We do know that whenever he is made manifest we shall be like him, because we shall see him just as he is.”

They “shall be like him.”

OBVIOUSLY, NOT exactly like him, in every way humanly imaginable. But they will share something. They shall be “like him” in a certain respect.

2 PETER 1:4
“Through these things he has freely given us the precious and very grand promises, that through these YOU may become sharers in divine nature , having escaped from the corruption that is in the world through lust.”

Can God creat beings that are spirit beings like him or can he only create physical things?
He can create spirits, and has. The Bible says God is “a spirit.” It also says he is the “divine one” and that he is a “divine being.”

Those that “shall be like him” and be sharers of “divine nature” will have one similarity with God, well, at least one….they will have divine nature.

In his article “Qualitative Anarthrous Predicate Nouns: Mark 15:39 and John 1:1,” published in Journal of Biblical Literature, Vol. 92, Philadelphia, 1973, p. 85, Philip B. Harner said that such clauses as the one in John 1:1, “with an anarthrous predicate preceding the verb, are primarily qualitative in meaning. They indicate that the logos has the nature of theos.”

He also said:”Perhaps the clause could be translated, 'the Word had the same nature as God.” This would be one way of representing John's thought, which is, as I understand it, that ho logos, no less than ho theos, had the nature of theos.” “Qualitative Anarthrous Predicate Nouns: Mark 15:39 and John 1:1,” Journal of Biblical Literature, 92, 1 (March 1973, p. 87.)

Quote

In contrast, the Bible asserts dualism, the doctrine that God is completely other than creation.

I'm not saying nor have I ever said God Almighty is not completely unique IN MOST OR MANY RESPECTS.
But this in no way means that he can't have some similarities with others.

1. You can be unique and still share similarities with others. (If this is not true, we really shouldn't ever use the word “unique.”)

Quote

Romans 1:25 points out that there is creation and there is the one who created. We do understand this.
Right now, machines can make other machines. A super dooper biggest, gretest, smartest machine ever to exist could create another little tiny meaningless machine. One is created, the other the creator. Yet, they both share a common nature–they're machines.

God, “a spirit” can if he wants to create other spirit beings. And he did.

david.

May 21, 2007 at 10:12 am#52775

Participant

Hi david,
Of course Christ is never said to have been created but only begotten and is the monogenes Son, not an angel. He did not take on their angelic nature but human nature.
Heb 2
“16For verily he took not on him the nature of angels; but he took on him the seed of Abraham. “

May 21, 2007 at 10:13 am#52776

david

Participant

That's great. And what does that have to do with what I was discussing?

May 21, 2007 at 10:36 am#52778

Proclaimer

Participant

Hi david.

Long time, no see.

Good to see you back.
Did you go on holiday?

May 21, 2007 at 6:37 pm#52786

Participant

Hi david,
We become like Christ because he dwells in us as Spirit and our physical tent dies.

'It is no longer I that liveth but Christ that liveth in me”

Christ was alike to God before he came.
We too are made in the image of God as inner man.
But those likenesses do not compare with the inner transforming affect of the Spirit.
That Spirit unites us to each other, in Christ to God, so that God may be all in all, who are among the US.

May 21, 2007 at 6:41 pm#52787

Participant

Hi David,

Forgive me but I don't feel as though you responded to my second post. Maybe you did, I just don't see it.

Anyway, it's good that our differences are clear -dualists believe God is different than creation in every way, whereas Jehovah's Witnesses believe God is different most and many ways, but not in all ways. Would you say that's right?

Regarding 1 John 3:2, I think we agree that this refers to believers becoming like Christ, that is, receiving a body like His glorious body (Philippians 3:21). But this tends to suggest that Jesus is God, the only one mentioned in 1 John 3:2. Otherwise, you would say that we will be like the Father, which I find just unacceptable.

We've discussed 2 Peter 1:4 before, and I thought we both agreed that it refers to us having spiritual bodies, as in 1 Corinthians 15:44.

So your argument comes down to God being a Spirit, and the angels being spirits, and believers receiving spiritual bodies, that this is something shared in common with God, and that alone is what Jesus shares in common with God. But you agree that God's Spirit is not the same as the angel's spirits, so how can you say that they are the same? Only in that they are invisible, not visible, which in my second post I showed proves nothing, for God is NOT everything that creation is.

Please read my second post and respond.

Tim

May 21, 2007 at 7:45 pm#52797

Participant

Thus, I think we can say God is completely other, existing in a way incomparable with everything else.
***********************
I agree with you, Tim. That is why God sent his Son into the world. That is why Jesus is “God with us” in the flesh (“with us” in that his son is his representative.) That is why God is not a man (not even in Jesus).

We are made in God's image and God did walk in the garden with Adam and Eve (they could hear his footsteps)…..mmmmm? I'm sorry for mocking this subject in the beginning (I thought it was another Trinity idea). But you are speaking of something different. The existence of God being utterly different then creation. OK, well, another thing to ponder!

May 21, 2007 at 8:36 pm#52801

Participant

Hi Tim2,
1Jn 3
” 1Behold, what manner of love the Father hath bestowed upon us, that we should be called the sons of God: therefore the world knoweth us not, because it knew him not.

2Beloved, now are we the sons of God, and it doth not yet appear what we shall be: but we know that, when he shall appear, we shall be like him; for we shall see him as he is.

3And every man that hath this hope in him purifieth himself, even as he is pure.

4Whosoever committeth sin transgresseth also the law: for sin is the transgression of the law.

5And ye know that he was manifested to take away our sins; and in him is no sin.

6Whosoever abideth in him sinneth not: whosoever sinneth hath not seen him, neither known him.

7Little children, let no man deceive you: he that doeth righteousness is righteous, even as he is righteous.

8He that committeth sin is of the devil; for the devil sinneth from the beginning. For this purpose the Son of God was manifested, that he might destroy the works of the devil.

9Whosoever is born of God doth not commit sin; for his seed remaineth in him: and he cannot sin, because he is born of God.

10In this the children of God are manifest, and the children of the devil: whosoever doeth not righteousness is not of God, neither he that loveth not his brother”

So who is the one who appeared and whom we will see and be like?

The Son of God[v8]

May 21, 2007 at 10:01 pm#52807

Participant

Quote (Not3in1 @ May 22 2007,07:45)

Hi Not3in1,

Your theory seems to be that Jesus is born of the Father and Mary, that He is their offspring, right? If you agree with dualism, which it seems you do, then what is Jesus, if He is a mixture of God and man? It seems that this would result in Jesus being a new, third substance: God fused with man. I think this is far less reasonable than the historical understanding that Jesus is both God and man, but the natures do not fuse. The historical understanding preserves dualism; but saying that Jesus is some sort of hybrid Godman would, as far as I can see, create a third substance.

Tim

May 21, 2007 at 10:30 pm#52809

Participant

Hi Tim2,
Jesus calls himself by choice son of Man.
Scripture is far more plain that he is man.
Romans 5:15
But not as the offence, so also is the free gift. For if through the offence of one many be dead, much more the grace of God, and the gift by grace, which is by one man, Jesus Christ, hath abounded unto many.
Acts 2
22Ye men of Israel, hear these words; Jesus of Nazareth, a man approved of God among you by miracles and wonders and signs, which God did by him in the midst of you, as ye yourselves also know:

1 Timothy 2:5
For there is one God, and one mediator between God and men, the man Christ Jesus;

And he did not say he was God but instead told men who misunderstood him that he is the Son of God. Any divine origins when he was with God should not confuse the fact that he was truly one of us with no divine advantages and all his powers were given him from above.

May 22, 2007 at 4:28 am#52836

Participant

It seems that this would result in Jesus being a new, third substance: God fused with man.
**********************

Yes, Jesus is the son of God and the son of Mary. Naturally, the union would produce a divine man.
This is much more logical than to say Jesus had two natures within himself that *didn't fuse.* What would this type of person be called?

May 22, 2007 at 5:17 am#52837

Participant

Quote (Tim2 @ May 22 2007,10:01)

Quote (Not3in1 @ May 22 2007,07:45)

Hi Not3in1,

Tim

Hi Tim2,
His was man-just like us.
We follow him.
The rest is of the folly of man's own ignorant intellectual creation.

May 22, 2007 at 5:25 am#52838

Participant

“….ignorant intellectual creation.”

Wow. That hit it right on the head, didn't it? OUCH!

May 22, 2007 at 6:42 pm#52882

http://www.reformed.org/documents/index.html

Participant

Not3in1,

1 Timothy 2:15 says that Jesus is a man. Hebrews 2:17 says Jesus was made like His brethren in all things. This means He had to be a man, a human, just like us. If he were a fusion of God and man, He would not be just like us. By having two natures that do not fuse, as the Definition of Chalcedon, Jesus is still like us because His human nature is exactly like ours.

And if God and man fused into a new nature in Jesus, then what are the properties of this new nature? What properties of God are retained? Which are lost? What properties of man are retained, and which are lost? Why doesn't the Bible tell us about the mixing of these natures?

I encourage you to read the Definition of Chalcedon and reconsider.

Tim

May 22, 2007 at 6:49 pm#52885

Participant

Hi Tim2,
What properties do you retain of your father?
Your father had to provide from human nature for you to be born a man.
Why do you think God provided anything different in the conception of Jesus for Christ to be born a man?

May 22, 2007 at 7:53 pm#52890