Featured The Nature of the Incarnation - Dual or Single?

As long as remember that the Church has always held that partial pretierism is valid view, but tthat full version of it is heresy, as denies the literal Second Coming of jesus!

 

Yes, we got our scissors and cut out all those verses.

 

Spoken like a person who never looked into Church history. Or into Preterism.

 

Full blown pretierism denies that there will be aliterally second coming, deny the physical resurrection of the body to be glorified, so has been always seen outside of orthodoxy!

 

But do you think this comparison is valid? The time of Christ's Incarnation is next to infinitely small compared to the two "eternities" (for want of a better word) on either side of His brief period of Incarnation.

I say that Christ is the same in eternity future (from the Ascension onward) as he was in eternity past.

You say that Christ is profoundly different (right?) from eternity past to eternity future.

My position is that Christ, with the exception of that tiniest sliver of time when He took on our nature in order to redeem us, has always been pure spirit.

Your position (correct me if I am wrong) is that in the two "halves" of eternity there is a great difference between His natures.

By your position, you are giving those few years of the Incarnation the same logical value as either eternity present or eternity past.

Whose is the greater disunity?

No, we are not told this. This is my point. In Acts 1 they were told in what "manner" He would come. Nothing is said about the nature of the One coming.

Think of how we use the word "manner". Mind your manners (the way you act). Act in an orderly manner, etc. This gives us an idea of how the KJV translators understood the underlying Greek phrase here.

Aside from that, we can just look at the rest of the verse.

"this same Jesus, which is taken up from you into heaven, shall so come in like manner as you have seen him go into heaven."

"Shall so come" is a verb phrase. It speaks of action, not essence. The angel did not say He shall have the same nature or essence when He first started to ascend. No, he pointed their direction to the other time-segment of His departure, to the very time that they ceased to see Him.

That was when the cloud received Him out of their sight. This cloud is the very thing that is overlooked in nineteen out of twenty discussions on this verse. Futurists don't know what to do with the cloud being mentioned - I didn't either, at the time - so they leave it out. Yet, the fact remains that, in all the second coming passages, the cloud is mentioned.

A further study of this cloud (both in the OT and the New) shows a twofold aspect to this usage: judgment on God's enemies and ongoing, sustaining presence for God's people.

 

Oh please. Come up with something substantive and biblical - and then we can talk. I know you haven't seriously studied Preterism, since you can't even spell it. That's just laziness.

Full-blown laziness.

 

Maybe not. IMO, Eternity is eternity, outside of the time continuum. I agree (I think you have quoted this passage):

Hebrews 13:8 Jesus Christ the same yesterday, and to day, and for ever.​

Time at best is IMO a function of eternity. So I suppose I agree with you to the extent that whatever His nature as human-divine is eternal which eternality has no boundaries. A metaphysical musterion.​

There is no disunity, He is and does whatsoever He pleases even if our interpretation is flawed.

If He wishes to split eternity and make the first "half" different than the second "half" that is His perogative.

Even a "tiniest sliver of time" where He is not "the same" is a flawed view according to Hebrews 13:8 .

While I can say that your view is viable, obviously one (or both) of us has a flawed view.

I can only say again that I disagree with full preterism (FP) interpretation of the Acts 1:11 passage.

We are (or have been told) by FP folks that we should take the natural meaning of words. e.g. "soon", "quickly"... but not when it comes to Acts 1:11 or "every eye shall see Him" and many many others.

2 Peter 3:10 But the day of the Lord will come as a thief in the night; in the which the heavens shall pass away with a great noise, and the elements shall melt with fervent heat, the earth also and the works that are therein shall be burned up.​

No need to expound on this passage Tom (unless you are compelled).

As has been said before, the differences between futurism and FP has to do with philology and hermeneutics which the church seems to know nothing of in centuries past.

But, I suppose that could be said of other doctrinal venues.

That's the problem, we don't know what they meant exactly with their 17th century boundaries of Elizabethan/Jacobean English and Church of England ecclesiology. But to take a plain and natural view we have ..."this same Jesus..." - "every eye shall see him..." - not Titus.

However, writers contemporary with the 1611 KJV such as John Bunyan were futurists.

Take care Tom in the great nation of China.

2 Timothy 4:2.

HankD

 

Did God beget himself a Son within the virgin Mary, who lived, grew and aged for a little over 33 years and died and had to be resurrected by his Father who had begotten him or did God come as a man, the Son through the virgin Mary, lived, grew and aged for a little over 33 years and died, but not really and raised himself from the dead of witch he really wasn't because he was eternal God?



Why didn't he just appear on earth as a man of about 30 years teach for about three years and then do the death thing?

What does the word of God say?

The Nature of the Incarnation

 

I am late coming to this thread, but I quickly skimmed over the posts, it seems that some actually would support a dual natured Christ.

I without reservation totally reject that The Lord Jesus Christ has or had Two natures.

I find that thinking totally unsupported in the Scriptures.

The Scriptures of Philippians 2 is one of the few places that display the process that took place both from heaven and earth. It also concerns that very nature of Christ as being the same no matter the estate.

6 Who, being in the form of God, thought it not robbery to be equal with God:
7 But made himself of no reputation, and took upon him the form of a servant, and was made in the likeness of men:
8 And being found in fashion as a man, he humbled himself, and became obedient unto death, even the death of the cross.
9 Wherefore God also hath highly exalted him, and given him a name which is above every name:
10 That at the name of Jesus every knee should bow, of things in heaven, and things in earth, and things under the earth;
11 And that every tongue should confess that Jesus Christ is Lord, to the glory of God the Father. ​

This passage proves that The Lord Jesus was NOT of two natures, but a blended form of ONE nature. That nature that He had BEFORE taking on the form of humankind, was the same nature as DURING the estate of humankind, and IS the same nature that He has always had.

There is ONE nature of Christ. Not two.

Unless one can circumvent this passage, there can be found no foundational support or Scriptural authority for Christ having two natures.

We believers are the ones with TWO natures - the fallen and the New Creature. Christ was not of this fallen world. He was made "in the likeness of man" just as Adam was made in the "likeness of God." That is one reason He is called the "second Adam."

Adam did not have two natures. He had one nature that fell when he became disobedient.

The second Adam, did not have two natures. He had one nature that was not disobedient and did not fall when tempted.

 

That is your interpretation and you are not alone among Trinitarians.

However it is not the interpretation of the majority of the western churches (aka The Hypostatic Union).

Philippians 2
7 But made himself of no reputation, and took upon him the form of a servant, and was made in the likeness of men:

Hebrews 2

16 For verily he took not on him the nature of angels; but he took on him the seed of Abraham.
17 Wherefore in all things it behoved him to be made like unto his brethren, that he might be a merciful and faithful high priest in things pertaining to God, to make reconciliation for the sins of the people.​

These passages indicate that He took upon himself the human nature in addition to being deity.

HankD

 

To put it most simply I believe you are flat wrong. I read the same passage you presented and come to the opposite conclusion.

 

Stroking feathers.



Phil 2:7 But made himself of no reputation, and took upon him the form of a servant, and was made in the likeness of men:
Matt. 1:20 But while he thought on these things, behold, the angel of the Lord appeared unto him in a dream, saying, Joseph, thou son of David, fear not to take unto thee Mary thy wife: for that which is conceived in her is of the Holy Spirit.
Luke 1:35 And the angel answered and said unto her, The Holy Ghost shall come upon thee, and the power of the Highest shall overshadow thee: therefore also that holy thing which shall be born of thee shall be called the Son of God. Luke 2:6,7 And so it was, that, while they were there, the days were accomplished that she should be delivered. And she brought forth her firstborn son, and wrapped him in swaddling clothes,


Phil 2:6 Who, being in the form of God, thought it not robbery to be equal with God:
Hebrews 7:9,10 And as I may so say, Levi also, who receiveth tithes, payed tithes in Abraham. For he was yet in the loins of his father, when Melchisedec met him.

The Nature of the Incarnation

Yes, No, Maybe, You are nuts

Thought I should add.

Romans 1:3,4 Concerning his Son Jesus Christ our Lord, which was made of the seed of David according to the flesh; And declared the Son of God with power, according to the spirit of holiness, by the resurrection from the dead:

 

Very good response. If Jesus Christ was made in the likeness of man he had to have a human nature. Certainly God could not lay aside His nature! Therefore two natures!

 

Immanuel, God with us. "The Word became flesh and dwelt among us; and we beheld His glory as of the only begotten of The Father."

God in the flesh. This cannot be demonstrated in the test tube. It is a unique and pivotal event in the history of this globe. Darwin choked on it, as well as his progeny.

Jesus is all man and all God. Jesus did no sin--God cannot sin. Jesus was the sinless sacrifice for the sins of many.

The charge against Jesus was blasphemy, "he makes himself to be God". Jesus is either exactly as His credentials or He is the greatest imposter ever. All others are thieves and robbers. That pretty well takes care of most of the religions of the world, including much of so-called Christendom.

Peace,

Bro. James

 

Thanks percho. That should put the matter to rest! Seed of David, human nature! Son of God, divine nature! 1+1=2!

 

Look back at the Phillipian passage.

He existed as equal with God in eternity past, "and took upon him the form of a servant, and was made in the likeness of men: And being found in fashion as a man, he humbled himself, and became obedient unto death, even the death of the cross."

Mary, was certainly the mother, but that which was "formed" in her was already in existence and therefore was not "by nature" the fallen condition.

The sin (fallen nature) is given by the father in conception. It is not by the woman for she was "beguiled, deceived" as Paul states in 2 Corinthians and Timothy. It is through the man. For the first ADAM sinned and sin is passed on by all through Adam - not Eve.

The thinking that Christ has "two natures" (IMO) is an attempt to place the pure Lamb of God into a creature with a fallen body state. That is not the evidence given of the actual body of Christ. He was not susceptible to disease and as He grew as a child He was both strong in spirit and wisdom before He was taken to Temple and debated with the priests. As the pure lamb of God, he was without spot or blemish not only in the inside, but according to the Levitical law must be without blemish on the outside as the perfect Lamb.

He had one "nature" (mind, will, heart, ...) just as all have before and after the fall.

It is only the believers that have two natures. The fallen which wars against the New Creation (creature/nature).

Christ was a blended form of fully God and fully human. He was NOT two separate and complete but one complete with ONE nature - that which He always possessed from eternity to eternity and made Himself the form of humanity as Philippians states.

 

The western view agrees in that although Christ had a duality of natures He had only one persona and will.

He was both The Son of God and The Son of man and not ashamed to call us His brethren.

Hebrews 2

11 For both he that sanctifieth and they who are sanctified are all of one: for which cause he is not ashamed to call them brethren,
12 Saying, I will declare thy name unto my brethren, in the midst of the church will I sing praise unto thee.​

HankD​

 

Perhaps you are confusing the "form" with the "nature."

Form indicates that he took upon Himself human attributes: feel, have empathy, hunger, thirst, be tired, .... yet without the sin nature. That is He was as Adam in the garden before Adam willingly took what he knew he should not take.

The nature of Christ being "equal with God" was not given up, and was not in anyway diminished by taking on the "form" of Humanity.

Consider the Scriptures where it says, "Beloved, 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."

What form was Christ before the earthly ministry? Equal with God
What form was Christ while on earth? He was in human form, yet equal with God. ("I and the Father are one." "This is my son ...")
What form is Christ? In human form, Equal with God.

There are those who would interchange "form" and "nature."

The Word did not change natures when "formed" (in cased) in human. The Word still had all the nature (authority and power) of God, yet He was in the flesh.

And for those who would apply a "two nature" thinking to the Nicene Creed, here is an english translation that shows no difference in that statement and what I have stated.


Nicene Creed:

And in one Lord Jesus Christ, the only-begotten Son of God, begotten of the Father before all worlds; God of God, Light of Light, very God of very God; begotten, not made, being of one substance with the Father, by whom all things were made.

Who, for us men and for our salvation, came down from heaven, and was incarnate by the Holy Spirit of the virgin Mary, and was made man​

The Athanasian Creed

But the Godhead of the Father, of the Son, and of the Holy Spirit is all one, the glory equal, the majesty co-eternal.

Such as the Father is, such is the Son and such is the Holy Spirit.

The Father uncreated, the Son uncreated, and the Holy Spirit uncreated.

The Father incomprehensible, the Son incomprehensible, and the Holy Spirit incomprehensible.

The Father eternal, the Son eternal, and the Holy Spirit eternal.

And yet they are not three eternals, but one eternal.

As also there are not three uncreated nor three incomprehensibles, but one uncreated and one incomprehensible.

So likewise the Father is almighty, the Son almighty, and the Holy Spirit almighty;

And yet they are not three almighties, but one almighty.

So the Father is God, the Son is God, and the Holy Spirit is God;

And yet they are not three Gods, but one God.

So likewise the Father is Lord, the Son Lord, and the Holy Spirit Lord;

And yet they are not three Lords, but one Lord.
​

London Baptist Confession of Faith 1689.

The Son of God, the second person in the Holy Trinity, being very and eternal God, the brightness of the Father's glory, of one substance and equal with him who made the world, who upholdeth and governeth all things he hath made, did, when the fullness of time was come, take upon him man's nature, with all the essential properties and common infirmities thereof, yet without sin; being conceived by the Holy Spirit in the womb of the Virgin Mary, the Holy Spirit coming down upon her: and the power of the Most High overshadowing her; and so was made of a woman of the tribe of Judah, of the seed of Abraham and David according to the Scriptures; so that two whole, perfect, and distinct natures were inseparably joined together in one person, without conversion, composition, or confusion; which person is very God and very man, yet one Christ, the only mediator between God and man. ​

The blending of the two became ONE inseparable.

The nature of Christ is NOT like that of a salad in which the parts may be distinguished but like that of a cake in which the blending and forming make of the parts a single whole - inseparable without conversion, composition, or confusion. Christ had no "division of powers" within himself. He was ONE, and One with God, and is God.

There is no difference in what I have stated as my view, the Scriptures, the Nicene Creed, The Athanasian Creed, nor the London Confession of Faith 1689 edition.

 

Seed of David does not equate to "human nature" but to human attributes (hunger, thirst, tired, empathy, hope, and other needs humanity needs, ten toes, ten fingers, two eyes...).

Son of God indicates by the word "son" the nature and divinity.


1=1

Christ is not 2 but 1.