Not quite. The Word was the eternal Son, but the hypostatic union did not exist until the Incarnation. And it exists to this year and will for eternity.
Yes.
-
Welcome to Baptist Board, a friendly forum to discuss the Baptist Faith in a friendly surrounding.
Your voice is missing! You will need to register to get access to all the features that our community has to offer.
We hope to see you as a part of our community soon and God Bless!
Two Natures
- Thread starter JonC
- Start date
Not quite. The Word was the eternal Son, but the hypostatic union did not exist until the Incarnation. And it exists to this year and will for eternity.
Yes.
I don't think you quite got the gist of what I wrote. I don't believe He became sinful by being clothed in sinful flesh, but the Gnostics thought that. And most proponents of Original Sin believe Jesus had to be magically exempted from it. Somehow.
Do you believe Jesus inherited Original Sin from Adam? If not, then you probably believe Jesus was/is "almost" fully human, regardless of what formula you recite.
That's what I run into almost every time I encounter someone who starts talking about hypostatic union and eternal sonship and coequal persons. They almost always have some way of denying His just-like-us human experience, right after claiming He's supposedly fully man
And my reference to most adherents of Big 7 faith is those who have come afterward. Like you and Craig into the Sea, or whatever he calls himself. And it's just an identifier, because quite frankly, I don't know anything at all about the 7th. But the earlier ones? Yeah, a little bit.
As for my understanding of Gnosticism, you would probably be surprised. But are you not familiar with the notion of a Demiurge?
Of course He's human and divine. But I don't believe for one second that those are His essence. His essence is body and spirit. Just like every other man. And just like every other man, His Spirit is from God. The Word of God to be precise. Proceeded from the Father.
Not some super-duper extra mysticism. The same mystical complexity of any embodied spirit called "man" is what the very Word of God subjected Himself to.
He took upon Himself sinful flesh, just as Paul wrote in Romans 8:3. Sharing in the same flesh and blood, and being made like us in all respects. Just like Hebrews 2:14-17 says.
BTW, He didn't inherit any sort of guilt from Adam - just as none of us did, either. We have a body which is procreated by our parents, and an innocent spirit which comes from God. We become sinners as we go our own way, which He never did. He was tempted in all points to go His own way, but endured every single time. He always did what the Father told Him. Never His own will.
In my own experience this simply isn't so.
I was saved at the age of 38 in a Plymouth Brethren assembly which did not have a trained ministry, so the teaching tended to be quite thin. We were taught that the Lord Jesus had died 'for our sins' and that was about it.
However, as soon as I began to read the Scriptures for myself (which was pretty much immediately) and came to Isaiah 53 and Romans 3 (hardly the most obscure of Scriptures), it became evident to me that our Lord had taken my very sins upon Himself and paid the penalty for them. I never heard the words 'Penal Substitution' and learned the other various theories until I started attending a little part-time seminary about 3 years later, but that was what I believed right from the start. When I came to the Levitical sacrifices, Psalm 22 and 1 Corinthians 5:21, they obviously conformed me in my belief.
However, what I am saying is that the "hypostatic union" that came into being at the incarnation did not change the nature of God. The nature of God remained unchanged. The hypostatic union was simply the ADDITION of something else (human) without any change of the God nature itself brought together in harmonious union in ONE PERSON without confusion or mixing of the two. The hypostatic union is not God, if it were God, then God CHANGED at the incarnation into something previously non-existent. Thus a NEW GOD. The hypostatic union is not God but only the union or bringing together in ONE PERSON what is God and what is man. From that point forward the immutable nature of God joined with human nature coexists in one Person.
Just as there are three co-existing Persons in the ONE GOD without confusion of Persons, there are two co-existing natures in the ONE PERSON of Christ without confusion of natures.
Although the nature of God includes both communicable and incommunicable attributes, it is the non-communicable attributes alone that distinguish God from all other beings and make God to be God, which without, he would not longer be God.
Likewise, the nature of man includes shared attributes with other beings, but there are some attributes alone that distinguish man from all other beings and make man to be man, which without, he would no longer be man.
In the PERSON of Christ both the incommunicable attributes of God and man existed without confusion - coexisting together.
His human body in heaven is not omnipresent, but located in heaven at the right hand of the Father. Only his divinity remains omnipresent just as demonstrated in John 3:13 when his deity was present in heaven but his body located on earth before Nicodemus.
And no man hath ascended up to heaven, but he that came down from heaven, even the Son of man which is in heaven. - Jn. 3:13
Moreover, just as between the Persons of the Godhead, there is a heirarchy of position or authority, so is there between these two natures in Christ. His deity is in the position of authority as it is His deity that determines what manifestations of God are revealed through his humanity and what extent of knowledge and wisdom that is obtained by the man Jesus. As a man, he grew in both wisdom and knowledge, but deity is immutably omniscient and cannot "grow" in either. As a man, he did not know the time of his own coming, but in his deity He knows all things including that time. The divine nature stands in the position of authority over his human nature as the finite is in submission to the infinite. This is a WILLING and FREE submission as it is between the different Persons of the Godhead. Both natures act in harmony but not without distinct seats of consciousness with one in a position of authority over the other. The divine nature determines the extent of knowledge possessed by human consciousness. The man Jesus is not conscious of the time of his own coming, but the divine Jesus knows all.
Multi-seats of consciousness exists between the THREE PERSONS in the ONE GOD. It also exists within man as man's consciousness is controlled by two different laws indwelling the one and same person (Rom. 7:15-25). In fallen man these two seats of consciousness are in conflict. However, in the one Person of Christ these two natures are not in conflict as the human nature is in a willing and free subjection to the divine and thus exist together in perfect inner harmony and peace.
Last edited:
A couple of comments, Brother Martin.
First, your experience seems exactly as I described, regardless of your disagreement, as evidenced by your post. When you read through scripture (if you are correct in your telling here) you viewed the atonement through the lens of Jesus paying for our sins through a vicariously death (a penal and substitutionary atonement). I am not denying the validity of such a view (it is, as I have told you, the view I also hold...even though that observation itself falls short of PST).
But you also came by that position “naturally”. That is how we would view the Cross (as both penal and substitutionary) because of our own views of justice. If we were a different people with a different worldview, then we would automatically gravitate to the other ways of looking at the Atonement as the primary focus - perhaps truths associated with reconciliation, or renewal. Or if we were steeped in first century Judaism then perhaps we would gravitate to the sacrificial system (which is not Penal Substitution but no less important a view).
I agree with you on PST, but I also believe other positions (to include the position of the Church for fifteen centuries) make valid observations. Penal and substitutionary aspects of the atonement are throughout Scripture and the other theories of Atonement because they are right. But no one held to Penal Substitution Theory for fifteen centuries (quite frankly, because that simply was not the primary way of looking at things). It is no wonder that the persecuted church often goes back to a Christus Victor motif. It resonates with their experience (as Penal Substitution resonates with our experience). But guess what? Neither are wrong (they simply focus on one aspect over another).
I once had a friend who explained that salvation is like a multi-faceted gem. We gravitate to one facet over another quite simply because it suits our worldview. That does not make it wrong, and I am not saying by any means that PST is wrong (I have not denied PST simply because I also believe it correct....I have not denied Christus Victor either, for the same reason). I am saying is that other positions are sometimes just as correct in what they put forward (and, depending on who’s holding the view, just as wrong in what they deny).
That is as fine a verbal body-swerve as I've seen in a very long time. You wrote:
But when I tell you that I came upon the doctrine in the Scripture, and not by extra-biblical influences or revelation, then (apart from quietly insinuating that I am lying) it's still all according to your post because of my worldview.
So we might as well forget Scripture because we're unable to read it (unless our understanding concurs with yours) because of our conditioning. Sheesh! When I read the Bible after being saved, every part of my world-view went up in smoke. But in any case, what part of Penal Substitution exists in the worldview of a humanist?
I'm not saying that you are lying. I'm saying that I do not believe you have identified influences that account for an emphasis on one aspect of the Atonement above all others.
I am also saying that your reply to my comment is less than honest (I never said that we can't see penal and substitutionary aspects of the atonement strictly through the Bible - in fact I said the opposite, that these are inherent in the definition of "atonement"). What I said was that Penal Substitution Theory, the doctrine of the Trinity, and our views of "two natures" incorporate ideas that exist as fruits of those who have gone before. So I am calling for a more honest dialogue here. You keep pointing to "penal" and "substitution" (which is present in both scripture and in other theories of atonement). You do realize that we are talking about Penal Substitution Theory....right? Not just penal and substitutionary aspects of the atonement but the theory as formulated and developed by the Reformers?
But I am willing to chalk up the error that Christ died a spiritual death by experiencing a separation as we would have (from the love of God, from the indwelling Spirit) to your "isolation" from orthodox views, if that counts. I can see how taking into your reading a modern sense of justice could lead to that error.
Got it. I misunderstood.
What you are saying is that people who disagree with your views only do so because they have 'influences' upon them. It must be wonderful to have such deep and amazing insight into the minds of others. Rolleyes
On the basis of that little snidey, you don't understand what I actually do believe. But don't worry; I'm not going to explain it to you again.
No, what I am saying is that it seems to me you have continually implied that I reject penal substitution (which is not even the topic here), or that I think it unbiblical. I am getting tired of the silliness that accompanies "so anyone who disagreed with you does so because they have 'influences'" mentality. Others have been corrected for such misrepresentation already so please forgive my lack of patience with this kind of nonsense. That may be what you hear but not what I am saying. It is something you are bringing into the post and applying to my words (and is a good example of my point here).
What you interpret as snidenesd is frustration - not only that you have missed my point, but also that you have misrepresented my words so severely.
I am saying that we need to be aware of presuppositions we may bring into interpretation and that when we are blind to these influencers we are prone to miss aspects of what is revealed in Scripture. If you disagree then start a thread about it. But no need in hijacking another one.
I was reading the Bible (completely uninfluenced by anything, to include my own way of understanding things) when it dawned on me that Scripture teaches we should confess one and the same Son, our Lord Jesus Christ, the same perfect in Godhead and also perfect in manhood; truly God and truly man, of a reasonable [rational] soul and body; consubstantial [co-essential] with the Father according to the Godhead, and consubstantial with us according to the Manhood; in all things like unto us, without sin; begotten before all ages of the Father according to the Godhead, and in these latter days, for us and for our salvation, born of the Virgin Mary according to the Manhood; one and the same Christ, Son, Lord, only begotten, to be acknowledged in two natures, inconfusedly, unchangeably, indivisibly, inseparably; the distinction of natures being by no means taken away by the union, but rather the property of each nature being preserved, and concurring in one Person and one Subsistence, not parted or divided into two persons, but one and the same Son, and only begotten, God the Word, the Lord Jesus Christ.
It seems to me that you are the one bringing presuppositions to the table and you are the under such "influences." This is a bone I was not permitted to finish picking with you on another thread because the thread was terminated.
The Bible is written in a contextually self-defined fashion and the Holy Spirit is not restricted to the opinions or interpretations of uninspired writings by men of other generations in order to convey its truth. What is simply needed is to study the IMMEDIATE context with dependency upon the Spirit and that is all the INFLUENCE necessary to come to the correct conclusion.
With regard to uninspired writings, it is entirely possible, that a person may take his bible and determine if such uninspired writings fit or do not fit the Biblical context, adopt language that fits and reject language that does not fit without coming under the influence of their developed theology. In other words, simply apply Isaiah 8:20. I am saying that simply because a person uses words coined later and outside the Biblical era does not mean their interpretation of scripture is determined by such influences, as they can just as easily use their own words to communicate the very same thing.
Sure....I agree that I bring to the table presuppositions and influences. I try to identify them when I am studying Scripture so that I can avoid such error, but they are present. I acknowledged this several times in our conversations. I am not a first-century Jew and it is not natural for me to think as one.
My objection earlier was about extra-biblical debates and issues - not writings. When we read scripture I believe it very unlikely that we will come up with the answers to questions not asked or addressed directly in the Bible.
You missed my point. Extra-Biblical debates and post-apostolic era influences and propositions are only valid if your interpretation of the Bible is determined by them. If your interpretation is determined by the Bible, it is entirely possible to select and reject post-Biblical era terms, arguments, etc., if the Isaiah 8:20 principle is being applied to post-era influences. You are assuming that cannot occur but if one uses post-Biblical era arguments, words, etc. then that proves they are under the influence of those theologions rather than submitting those theologians to the Isa. 8:20 principle.
You, friend, miss the point. We all use post-biblical era words. We are not talking about interpretation but application in systematically developing these theories.
Maybe this example will help illustrate (but not change the topic):
Suppose you and I agree that we are commanded to be good stewards of our resources. We make a doctrine to deal with gambling. I take this to mean that gambling is wrong, you don't (or vise versa). We bring into scripture things when we develop doctrines.
No, you friend have missed the point again. Your illustration has no relevance to what we are talking about. The atonement is directly addressed in scripture but gambling is not. Penal substitutionary atonement is directly addressed in scripture "died for our sins" - the necessary language is supplied by scripture, "penal" is an additional descriptive but synonymous term. The language supplies application.
Just because I use the term "penal" does not mean my application is influenced by post-era doctrine as "penal" is implied by the very language of the Bible. Just because I use the word "substitution" does not mean I have been influenced by post-Biblical doctrine or application because the very langauge of the Bible implies it "for my". I may choose those terms because they convey the very thing the scripture is explicitly teaching. In this case the Bible supplies both the doctrine and application by context and language.
The point is that I can use the Bible according to Isa. 8:20 when reading post-era doctrinal summations or their applications and accept or reject, pick and choose, agree or disagree without my doctrine or application being the result of post-Biblical influences. Furthermore, those post-Biblical formations may equally be direct results of interpretating Biblical content and application.
Last edited:
I want to apologize for the remark that prompted that response. It was presumptuous and ill-considered.
Of course no one could come up with this precise formulation without being influenced by at least the wording with definitions of later writers influencing them. However, the doctrine and a synonymous interpretation and application could have been derived without reading them or else that teaching is not Biblical. If it is biblical, then it can be expressed equally in the first century as in the 21st century because the fine differences are found in the Biblical text.