Did God "Change" With the Incarnation?

[preachinjesus]

I'm sorry but that is such a stretch. You are erasing all meaning from the word "change".

Change:
verb (used with object)
1.
to make the form, nature, content, future course, etc., of (something) different from what it is or from what it would be if left alone: to change one's name; to change one's opinion; to change the course of history.
2.
to transform or convert (usually followed by into ): The witch changed the prince into a toad.

Of course it's not that easy. The broader issue here is the nature of ontological change...which has completely different implications than a basic definition. My position, and the position of orthodox theology since Niceae, has been that Christ did not change in His ontological divine being/essence at the point of the incarnation.

To suggest so smacks of Eutychianism or Apollinarianism or Nestorianism. Jesus did not change in His divine being/essence but fused together, hypostatic union, with the humanity in a perfect, unchanged union.

On patristic writer who has nailed this is Athansius in his work On the Incarnation which is available for free over at CCEL.org.

 

[jbh28]

jesus as God would NEVER change at all in His divine essense, had ALL of His God attrubutes forever same BUT did add to those his humanity, so he is now God/Man forever, so in JUST that aspect, had changed!

Mr Sock, God did not change.

http://carm.org/questions/about-god/gods-nature-changed-jesus-being-divine-and-human

 

[jbh28]

Can you show scripture to support this?

John

Which part are you questioning? Are you questioning that Jesus didn't have a sinful nature? Or are you questioning the humanity of Jesus?

 

[asterisktom]

God "added" the Humanity of Jesus unto Himself, and for the first 'time" in all history, God was now Man! Adding humanity nature to own divine One...Permanent change...

God's Word: "I don't change."
DaChaser: "Permanent change."

Hmm. Whom to believe?

 

[asterisktom]

Of course it's not that easy. The broader issue here is the nature of ontological change...which has completely different implications than a basic definition. My position, and the position of orthodox theology since Niceae, has been that Christ did not change in His ontological divine being/essence at the point of the incarnation.

To suggest so smacks of Eutychianism or Apollinarianism or Nestorianism. Jesus did not change in His divine being/essence but fused together, hypostatic union, with the humanity in a perfect, unchanged union.

On patristic writer who has nailed this is Athansius in his work On the Incarnation which is available for free over at CCEL.org.

One thing that Church history has demonstrated is that the springing up of various errors always - eventually! - led to a very healthy adjustment. Authors, being goaded on the point of contention by opposers, discover or rediscover biblical truths. my impression of Athanasius's OtI was that it was mainly a correction against Arianism. But it has been a while since I have read hat particular work, so I could easily have missed something.

If you have particular passages of Ath. in mind, please let me know. Just the citation. I have the book with me.

At any rate -and this wouldn't come as a surprise, seeing I am a Preterist - a reference to the Nicene Council would be nowhere nearly as definitive as Scriptural warrant.

I would be especially indebted if you could show me the latter, specifically showing either the fact or the necessity for Christ not, in eternity future (from the Incarnation), to be exactly the same essence that He was in eternity past.

I believe that He is, in fact, the very same that He was before the very first events of the Bible.

 

[asterisktom]

My position, and the position of orthodox theology since Niceae, has been that Christ did not change in His ontological divine being/essence at the point of the incarnation.

To suggest so smacks of Eutychianism or Apollinarianism or Nestorianism. Jesus did not change in His divine being/essence but fused together, hypostatic union, with the humanity in a perfect, unchanged union.

Once again, we need to find Scriptural proofs of this Hypostatic Union 2.0. I call it that because the doctrine of HU is here invoked, I believe, for a markedly different purpose than the original one. At first it was meant to nail down the nature of the Incarnation of Christ. But here, in this thread, the issue is not Christ's nature in the Incarnation, but His nature after the ascension and on into eternity.

 

[seekingthetruth]

Which part are you questioning? Are you questioning that Jesus didn't have a sinful nature? Or are you questioning the humanity of Jesus?

the nature of man is sinful. Jesus was not sinful in nature. humanity?..... in flesh, yes, in nature? Absolutely not.

Jesus was human in flesh, not nature.

John

 

[Amy.G]

the nature of man is sinful. Jesus was not sinful in nature. humanity?..... in flesh, yes, in nature? Absolutely not.

Jesus was human in flesh, not nature.

John

No. Jesus had a human nature just as Adam had a human nature before he fell. Jesus is the second Adam. If he didn't have a human nature, He would not be human. He was both 100% human and 100% God. The 1st Adam messed it up. The 2nd Adam cleaned it up.

 

[jbh28]

the nature of man is sinful. Jesus was not sinful in nature. humanity?..... in flesh, yes, in nature? Absolutely not.

Jesus was human in flesh, not nature.

John

You misusing nature. If Jesus didn't have a human nature, he wasn't human. The nature of man today is sinful, but Jesus was not. You sound as if you are denying the humanity of Jesus. Jesus was fully human, yet without sin.

 

[jbh28]

No. Jesus had a human nature just as Adam had a human nature before he fell. Jesus is the second Adam. If he didn't have a human nature, He would not be human. He was both 100% human and 100% God. The 1st Adam messed it up. The 2nd Adam cleaned it up.

:thumbs::thumbs:

 

[percho]

KJV

What phrase is used more than any to describe God?

Come on. Two or three or four , five play the game.