WORD-FLESH VS. WORD MAN CHRISTOLOGY: definition & opinion

[a SATS prof]

These are common designations for the two positions on what constitutes Christ's humanity.

At issue is whether the incarnated Christ possesses the true and complete faculties of man (WORD-man) or whether He lacks some of man's faculties (Word- flesh).

Modern adherents of Word Flesh Christology are: AH Strong, Christ does not have a human will or consciousness (Systematic Theology, 695) ; McIntyre, the human nature does not act (The Chalcedon Faith and its Clarifications in The Theology of Christ 164-168); and Erickson ,the huiman mind in Christ is the self-limited mind of the Logos (Christian Theology , 1985,735,721,715) and God in Three Persons ,223. MANY others hold this view!

Other moderns teach Word-man Christology. Grudem says that there are two intelligences and wills in Christ and that Scripture applies the experiences & behaviors to either one or the natures (Systematic Theology, 561,558,562). Warfield posits that there are two centers of consciousness in Christ and some acts of Christ are attributable only to the human consciousness.( The Person& Work of Christ, 258) The human nature acts in distinction from the deity! Chas Hodge affirms that the human nature in Christ is an entity that acts and these acts are NOT to be predicated to the divine nature. (Systematic Theology II:387-392) Many other hold this view.

I am a Word-Man Christologist

In your opinion, which understanding of Christ is correct and why?

 

[agedman]

These are common designations for the two positions on what constitutes Christ's humanity.

At issue is whether the incarnated Christ possesses the true and complete faculties of man (WORD-man) or whether He lacks some of man's faculties (Word- flesh).

Modern adherents of Word Flesh Christology are: AH Strong, Christ does not have a human will or consciousness (Systematic Theology, 695) ; McIntyre, the human nature does not act (The Chalcedon Faith and its Clarifications in The Theology of Christ 164-168); and Erickson ,the huiman mind in Christ is the self-limited mind of the Logos (Christian Theology , 1985,735,721,715) and God in Three Persons ,223. MANY others hold this view!

Other moderns teach Word-man Christology. Grudem says that there are two intelligences and wills in Christ and that Scripture applies the experiences & behaviors to either one or the natures (Systematic Theology, 561,558,562). Warfield posits that there are two centers of consciousness in Christ and some acts of Christ are attributable only to the human consciousness.( The Person& Work of Christ, 258) The human nature acts in distinction from the deity! Chas Hodge affirms that the human nature in Christ is an entity that acts and these acts are NOT to be predicated to the divine nature. (Systematic Theology II:387-392) Many other hold this view.

I am a Word-Man Christologist

In your opinion, which understanding of Christ is correct and why?

Frankly, I think BOTH have some areas of concern.

The union of God and man did not have two wills, two minds, two...

Neither did the Son have the fallen mind and will of the flesh. The Son had to learn (...grew in wisdom and stature, and in favor with God and man... as Luke states) and had the expressions of physical need (hunger and sleep) as well as emotions (cry, wrath).

Rather, the Son was unique - God in the flesh.

To separate out what was "flesh" and what was "God" destroys the unique unity of the complete Christ. Such teaching in which the base desire is to separate, (imo), is just open for teaching error.

 

[a SATS prof]

Frankly, I think BOTH have some areas of concern.

The union of God and man did not have two wills, two minds, two...

Neither did the Son have the fallen mind and will of the flesh. The Son had to learn (...grew in wisdom and stature, and in favor with God and man... as Luke states) and had the expressions of physical need (hunger and sleep) as well as emotions (cry, wrath).

Rather, the Son was unique - God in the flesh.

To separate out what was "flesh" and what was "God" destroys the unique unity of the complete Christ. Such teaching in which the base desire is to separate, (imo), is just open for teaching error.

-----
I certainly agree with you that the Son learned. But I thought God was omniscient (Job 37:16;Ps 90:4; 2 Pet 3:8; ) "His understanding has no limit" (Ps 147:5). And Christ incarnate was thought to have an omniscient intellect by those who best knew Him. "You know all things"Jo 16:30 ; 21:17). BUT the Gospels also portray Christ's having limited knowledge, I don't know when I'll return. MK 13:32. How can these two contrary affirmations be reconciled?

Cyril of Alexandria has a solution: The Logos just pretended to be ignorant. I reject that as God does not lie.

Eutyches and the modern non-Chacedonian Miaphysites have an answer too: The divine in Christ mixed with the human in Christ resulting in one combined nature.I reject that as God does not change.

Erickson has an answer also: God the Son stopped using God's attributes His powers being confined by a body.I reject that also because God does not change (Ps 102:26,27; ; Mal 3:6;Heb 1"1--12.And Scripture NO WHERE says the Son as God stopped using divine attributes.

IMO: Each nature in Christ acts in distinction from the other. God does not learn and man does not know all. If God in Christ is not omniscient, neither is He God and if man in Christ knows all, He is not man. I am not a Mormon who thinks God is a big man and that man is the same specie as God.





I

 

[JamesL]

The union of God and man did not have two wills, two minds, two...

considering will, mind, emotions, etc are all part of the psyche, and considering that psyche is the soul, it would translate into Christ having two souls.

Neither did the Son have the fallen mind and will of the flesh.

I would contend that this phrase is a misnomer, as flesh is meat and bone. there is no mind in meat. There is no will in bone

To separate out what was "flesh" and what was "God" destroys the unique unity of the complete Christ. Such teaching in which the base desire is to separate, (imo), is just open for teaching error.

God is Spirit. His Word was clothed in human meat and bones.

 

[agedman]

A problem with trying to "attribute" the various parts of Christ is also found in some who would desire to make Christ "all knowing" from the moment of conception leaving no room for the growth in "wisdom and stature with God and man." Such thinking is not according to the truth presented in Scriptures.

That the "physical" mind of Christ had to develop as all human brains do does not present the mind as less that that desired by the eternal being set aside. Rather, it shows that from conception, the Lord was tested in all points, and did not sin. There then is great confidence that no experience from conception to death is outside of the experiential of Christ.

What happens when taking attributes of God and making them applicable to Christ must also take into account that God is not controlled by time, but controls time. However, God (in Christ) became subject to time, yet controlled time. Therefore, the attributes would also be conformed to the conditions of time. Again, as the child grew, He knew that He must "be about the (my) Father's business" but also grew in "wisdom and knowledge." Who could be the teacher of God?

 

[a SATS prof]

considering will, mind, emotions, etc are all part of the psyche, and considering that psyche is the soul, it would translate into Christ having two souls.
I would contend that this phrase is a misnomer, as flesh is meat and bone. there is no mind in meat. There is no will in bone. God is Spirit. His Word was clothed in human meat and bones.

----

The NT word for flesh is sarx. Kindly inform me which NT Greek lexicon says sarx can only mean bone & meat?

 

[a SATS prof]

A problem with trying to "attribute" the various parts of Christ is also found in some who would desire to make Christ "all knowing" from the moment of conception leaving no room for the growth in "wisdom and stature with God and man." Such thinking is not according to the truth presented in Scriptures.

I did not say that.

That the "physical" mind of Christ had to develop as all human brains do does not present the mind as less that that desired by the eternal being set aside. Rather, it shows that from conception, the Lord was tested in all points, and did not sin. There then is great confidence that no experience from conception to death is outside of the experiential of Christ.

My view does not affirm that He did not develop as man, it affirms that as God He did not.

What happens when taking attributes of God and making them applicable to Christ must also take into account that God is not controlled by time, but controls time. However, God (in Christ) became subject to time, yet controlled time. Therefore, the attributes would also be conformed to the conditions of time. Again, as the child grew, He knew that He must "be about the (my) Father's business" but also grew in "wisdom and knowledge." Who could be the teacher of God?

Kindly give me your proof that God in Christ was subject to time. The attribute of eternality is limited in time? Please prove that.

THANKS

 

[a SATS prof]

considering will, mind, emotions, etc are all part of the psyche, and considering that psyche is the soul, it would translate into Christ having two souls.

---
Well, OK, A divine Soul (will mind) doesn't know (MK 13:32) ?


And a human soul (will, mind) is in God's nature (Phil 2:6)

Hmmmmmmmmmmmmmm.? Nope, don't buy it,

 

[JamesL]

----

The NT word for flesh is sarx. Kindly inform me which NT Greek lexicon says sarx can only mean bone & meat?

Just as soon as you show from the scriptures where it must necessarily mean something else, you'll have a proper rebuttal. I don't debate lexicons, because the men who wrote them don't have universal agreement. You have even said as much

You'll have to excuse my candor, but I am overly suspicious of men and their definitions which come from doctrine. Supposed experts.
Sheesh

 

[a SATS prof]

Just as soon as you show from the scriptures where it must necessarily mean something else, you'll have a proper rebuttal..
Sheesh

---
I agree that we must be careful swallowing what men--not Scripture--say. But we ALL are men. So, If I wish to understand a Greek term , I look at what Greek experts say AND WHAT BIBLE PROOF they offer! I do not assume my human understanding must be better than others!

Words, of course, can have different meanings.SARX can mean several things.

So that I understand you, IF I can show examples of sarx in the Bible not just meaning bone & meat, then you will show me a Greek lexicon.that says sarx ONLY can mean bone & meat! Hmmm...how could I possibly find in the NT where the Greek sarx cannot mean merely meat and bone?! Hmmm??? That' a really tough one ..Why not use an analytical Greek Concordance!? OR should SCriptures quoted by men also be beneath us? OK, here's a few:

Lk 3:6 "all sarx shall see the salvation" (all meat and bone will see salvation??)
Acts 2:17 I will pour out My Spirit on all sarx (on all meat & bone??)
Eph 2:11, Gentiles in the sarx ( in bone and meat?)
Col 2:18, "puffed up by his sarkos mind( bone and meat mind??
1 Pet 4:6 "judged according to men in the sarx (men in bone & meat)?
THESE ARE IN THE BIBLE!


Now will you kindly show me one Greek NT lexicon which says sarx can only mean bone and meat??

Thanks
...

 

[JamesL]

---
I agree that we must be careful swallowing what men--not Scripture--say. But we ALL are men. So, If I wish to understand a Greek term , I look at what Greek experts say AND WHAT BIBLE PROOF they offer! I do not assume my human understanding must be better than others!

Words, of course, can have different meanings.SARX can mean several things.

So that I understand you, IF I can show examples of sarx in the Bible not just meaning bone & meat, then you will show me a Greek lexicon.that says sarx ONLY can mean bone & meat! Hmmm...how could I possibly find in the NT where the Greek sarx cannot mean merely meat and bone?! Hmmm??? That' a really tough one ..Why not use an analytical Greek Concordance!? OR should SCriptures quoted by men also be beneath us? OK, here's a few:

Lk 3:6 "all sarx shall see the salvation" (all meat and bone will see salvation??)
Acts 2:17 I will pour out My Spirit on all sarx (on all meat & bone??)
Eph 2:11, Gentiles in the sarx ( in bone and meat?)
Col 2:18, "puffed up by his sarkos mind( bone and meat mind??
1 Pet 4:6 "judged according to men in the sarx (men in bone & meat)?
THESE ARE IN THE BIBLE!


Now will you kindly show me one Greek NT lexicon which says sarx can only mean bone and meat??

Thanks
...

I'll have to admit that I bit on a piece of bait I wasn't looking for. I never once said that flesh can only be DEFINED as meat and bone, I simply said that's what it "IS"

So when you inserted the word "mean", I should have noticed, but I didn't. So I'm going to back this up right now. Flesh "IS" meat and bone.

Lk 3:6 - People and animals have physical bodies made from meat and bone. So all sarx seeing the salvation of God just might be akin to Revelation 1:7 saying that every EYE shall see Him coming in the clouds. Eyes...part of this meat and bone body, no?

Acts 2:17 - Pour out His Spirit on all people, who happen to have bodies made of meat and bone, no?

Eph 2:11 - Gentiles according to PHYSICAL lineage, right? Physical bodies, perhaps? Meat and bone bodies, no?

Col 2:18 - fleshly mind, right? a mind set on the cravings or desires of the senses of the physical body - meat and bone bod, no?

1Peter 4:6 - judged in the flesh. Those who had died PHYSICALLY. Their meat and bone body had died, no?

I don't believe you've proved anything, so you jumped the gun and patted yourself on the back too soon

 

[a SATS prof]

Acts 2:17 - Pour out His Spirit on all people, who happen to have bodies made of meat and bone, no?

---

There ya go! He poured out His Spirit on people who are designated sarx. He didn't pour Him out only on their bodies.

But it looks like we cannot agree on very much.That's OK,