Do our systems of thought teach that Jesus is really the One True God?

[JonC]

So, God's nature did not take upon human nature as a hybrid nature?

Yes. God's nature did not take on human nature to become a hybrid nature.

So, human nature taken on by Christ did not merge with the divine nature but both natures remained distinct but coexistent in one person??

Yes. Human nature did not coexist in Christ as a distinct second nature.

How can it be flawed when the divine nature is unable to provide a sin offering for man?

Because nature does not provide a sin offering for man.

if it is necessary to take upon a human nature to provide that atonement does it no naturally lead to the conclusion that it was his human nature that provided the atonement without denying the coexistent union with the divine nature?

If it were necessary then perhaps. But that's philosophy and not theology. It presupposes we can gain knowledge by going around Christ rather than only through Him and His work.

 

[The Biblicist]

Both natures are united in one person but without destroying their distinction as "human" and "divine" as this is what Scripture clearly demands. Can I explain it, rationalize it? No! However, your position denies co-existence and makes the two indistinguisable one from the other.

 

[JonC]

That statement certainly runs afoul of Chalcedon.

ETA: As does this:




The Archangel

I agree. Not that I see them as unimportant, but I am not indebted to these philosophies. I believe we can understand things many ways - but what we believe about God has to come from God's self revelation (not philosophically developed statements).

 

[The Biblicist]

Yes. God's nature did not take on human nature to become a hybrid nature.

so far so good

Yes. Human nature did not coexist in Christ as a distinct second nature.

"Houston we have a problem" Your "yes" affirms conexistence in my statement, but your next sentence denies your "yes." Either humanity and deity coexist without contradiction to each other and without merging with each other or they do not. Which is it?

Because nature does not provide a sin offering for man.
If it were necessary then perhaps.

You have to deny his one personage to make this claim. You make that separation by saying "nature does not provide a sin offering" when it is His person that provides the sin offering through his humanity without denying the coexistence of his divinity.

 

[JonC]

Both natures are united in one person but without destroying their distinction as "human" and "divine" as this is what Scripture clearly demands. Can I explain it, rationalize it? No! However, your position denies co-existence and make then indistinguisable one from the other.

I think your first task is to prove Christ possessed two natures. Can you do this apart from philosophy? If so, it'd be great.

That said, please be more careful in what my position affirms or denies. Your words do not reflect my beliefs but your understanding of my beliefs.

My position affirms the eternal existence of God (Father, Son, and Spirit). It does not make each Person indistinguishable (as I already proved in the various roles) but I do believe we worship ONE God in three persons.

Insofar as natures, I don't mix them either. I deny two existed.

 

[The Biblicist]

I agree. Not that I see them as unimportant, but I am not indebted to these philosophies. I believe we can understand things many ways - but what we believe about God has to come from God's self revelation (not philosophically developed statements).

First, it is not philosopy based but based upon the clear declarations and necessary inferences of Scripture. Humanity and divinity do not cease to exist in his one person nor are they made indistinguisable from each other as your philosophical opinion demands.

 

[JonC]

Your "yes" affirms conexistence in my statement, but your next sentence denies your "yes." Either humanity and deity coexist without contradiction to each other and without merging with each other or they do not. Which is it?.

I don't believe you are getting what I am saying. I believe the whole philosophy is wrong. I can't argue how something works if I believe that something a fiction expanded by Catholic dogma.

I do not believe Jesus had two natures - so I don't believe they existed separately or as some hybrid.

 

[The Biblicist]

I think your first task is to prove Christ possessed two natures. Can you do this apart from philosophy? If so, it'd be great.

"tabernacled among us" "took upon himself" necessarily implies two distinct natures united in one person without confusing one with the other.

The preincarnate God the son was not human was he? No!
The incarnate Son did not cease to be God in nature did he? No!
He "took upon" the human nature did he not? Yes?
The human nature did not become deity did it? No, or else we have a new kind of divine nature another kind of god.

This is not philosophy as there is such a thing as necessary inferences and this is one of them - continuance of divine nature without change - adoption of another nature that was not divine and did not become divine or else we have another kind of god as well. The necessary inference is coexistence without confusion of natures in one Person.

The idea of three Persons as one divine being - God is as much a product of philosophy as two divine natures in one Person! Neither are products of philosophy but products of necessary inference of clear scriptures.

 

[JonC]

First, it is not philosopy based but based upon the clear declarations and necessary inferences of Scripture. Humanity and divinity do not cease to exist in his one person nor are they made indistinguisable from each other as your philosophical opinion demands.

You are better than this. You have studied the trinitarian formula and know that this is very much philosophical (what constitutes "nature"; what us meant by "persons").

I'm not going to entertain even discussing whether or not philosophy is involved. If you have a verse that states Jesus has two natures, together but not mixed, then provide it. Otherwise I think we should pass on this one for the integrity of t by e discussion at hand.

I simply deny two natures were present in Christ. Go from there.

 

[The Biblicist]

That said, please be more careful in what my position affirms or denies. Your words do not reflect my beliefs but your understanding of my beliefs.

Pleeeeease not this again! First, I never said my words or beleifs are espoused by you or should be attributed to your belief system. I have simply stated from my point of observation that your view logically leads to this or that according to my view of your position whether you agree with it or not and I have every right to assess positions placed before me. You have no right to deny me of that priviledge of expressing my own free thought about what I see as logical conclusions to your position or any other position presented. If I called you names, or claimed you believed what I saw are the logical consequences that is horse of another color.

 

[The Biblicist]

You are better than this. You have studied the trinitarian formula and know that this is very much philosophical (what constitutes "nature"; what us meant by "persons"). -

What I am saying is that philosophy is as much a part of your presentation as you accuse it to be of others. Indeed, the very expression One God in three Persons without confusion of Persons sharing one divine substance is based upon clear scriptures when properly exegeted demand this as the necessary inference. So your charge is like the pot calling the kettle black.

I presented the Biblical facts in order to show two distinct coexisting natures in one Person and you ignored them. So here are they again,

"tabernacled among us" "took upon himself" necessarily implies two distinct natures united in one person without confusing one with the other.

The preincarnate God the son was not human was he? No!
The incarnate Son did not cease to be God in nature did he? No!
He "took upon" the human nature did he not? Yes?
The human nature did not become deity did it? No, or else we have a new kind of divine nature another kind of god.

This is not philosophy as there is such a thing as necessary inferences and this is one of them - continuance of divine nature without change - adoption of another nature that was not divine and did not become divine or else we have another kind of god as well. The necessary inference is coexistence without confusion of natures in one Person.

 

[JonC]

Pleeeeease not this again! First, I never said my words or beleifs are espoused by you or should be attributed to your belief system. I have simply stated from my point of observation that your view logically leads to this or that according to my view of your position whether you agree with it or not and I have every right to assess positions placed before me. You have no right to deny me of that priviledge of expressing my own free thought about what I see as logical conclusions to your position or any other position presented. If I called you names, or claimed you believed what I saw are the logical consequences that is horse of another color.

As my friend @The Archangel once pointed out to me, we have to take care with the words of other people. You said that my position denies co-existence making them indistinguishable from each other. This is a false statement (my position denies two natures exist).

 

[JonC]

What I am saying is that philosophy is as much a part of your presentation as you accuse it to be of others. Indeed, the very expression One God in three Persons without confusion of Persons sharing one divine substance is based upon clear scriptures when properly exegeted demand this as the necessary inference. So your charge is like the pot calling the kettle black.

I presented the Biblical facts in order for two distinct coexisting natures in one Person and you ignored them. So here are they again,

"tabernacled among us" "took upon himself" necessarily implies two distinct natures united in one person without confusing one with the other.

The preincarnate God the son was not human was he? No!
The incarnate Son did not cease to be God in nature did he? No!
He "took upon" the human nature did he not? Yes?
The human nature did not become deity did it? No, or else we have a new kind of divine nature another kind of god.

This is not philosophy as there is such a thing as necessary inferences and this is one of them - continuance of divine nature without change - adoption of another nature that was not divine and did not become divine or else we have another kind of god as well. The necessary inference is coexistence without confusion of natures in one Person.

Philosophy does abound. I don't think we can discuss these things apart from Christ except the arguments become philosophical in nature.

Here it not only seems to be philosophy but it may be vague philosophy (the worst kind) as "nature" has not even been adequately defined in terms of one having two.

 

[The Biblicist]

As my friend @The Archangel once pointed out to me, we have to take care with the words of other people. You said that my position denies co-existence making them indistinguishable from each other. This is a false statement (my position denies two natures exist).

That is my conclusion of your position when you say you deny two natures. They cannot be coexistent if they don't exist. How can non-existent natures be coexistent? Such a position is oxymoronic - a self contradiction of words "non-existent" and "coexistent"?????? It is like saying ice is neither hot nor cold nor anything in between.

 

[JonC]

That is my conclusion of your position when you say you deny two natures. They cannot be coexistent if they don't exist. How can non-existent natures be coexistent?

How can they be indistinguishable if they don't exist?

 

[The Biblicist]

How can they be indistinguishable if they don't exist?

That is certainly not my position! I state they can be distinguished and they do exist and again you ignored the Biblical evidence provided in the form of necessary inferences of clearly stated texts.

 

[The Biblicist]

Philosophy does abound. I don't think we can discuss these things apart from Christ except the arguments become philosophical in nature.

Here it not only seems to be philosophy but it may be vague philosophy (the worst kind) as "nature" has not even been adequately defined in terms of one having two.

You are ignoring the exegetical sound principle of necessary inferences and I a base my position on that principle not on philosophical opining.

Again, you ignore the evidence for necessary inferences of specific texts I provided from the gospel of John and the letter to the Phillippians.

 

[The Biblicist]

"took upon himself" necessarily implies two distinct natures united in one person without confusing one with the other.

The preincarnate God the son was not human was he? No!
The incarnate Son did not cease to be God in nature did he? No!
He "took upon" the human nature did he not? Yes?
The human nature did not become deity did it? No, or else we have a new kind of divine nature another kind of god.

This is not philosophy as there is such a thing as necessary inferences and this is one of them - continuance of divine nature without change - adoption of another nature that was not divine and did not become divine or else we have another kind of god as well. The necessary inference is coexistence without confusion of natures in one Person.

 

[agedman]

....

...

Perhaps it would be best to look at 2 Corinthians 5 and see if you both need to consider a very slight adjustment into closer agreement.

1For we know that if the earthly tent which is our house is torn down, we have a building from God, a house not made with hands, eternal in the heavens. 2For indeed in this house we groan, longing to be clothed with our dwelling from heaven,
​

Just as was the Word in bodily form.

3inasmuch as we, having put it on, will not be found naked. 4For indeed while we are in this tent, we groan, being burdened, because we do not want to be unclothed but to be clothed, so that what is mortal will be swallowed up by life. 5Now He who prepared us for this very purpose is God, who gave to us the Spirit as a pledge.
​

The BODY that clothed the Word was in such a state: As Hebrew paraphrasing the statements of Psalm 40 states, "...a body you prepared for me."

6Therefore, being always of good courage, and knowing that while we are at home in the body we are absent from the Lord— 7for we walk by faith, not by sight— 8we are of good courage, I say, and prefer rather to be absent from the body and to be at home with the Lord. 9Therefore we also have as our ambition, whether at home or absent, to be pleasing to Him. 10For we must all appear before the judgment seat of Christ, so that each one may be recompensed for his deeds in the body, according to what he has done, whether good or bad.

11Therefore, knowing the fear of the Lord, we persuade men, but we are made manifest to God; and I hope that we are made manifest also in your consciences. 12We are not again commending ourselves to you but are giving you an occasion to be proud of us, so that you will have an answer for those who take pride in appearance and not in heart. 13For if we are beside ourselves, it is for God; if we are of sound mind, it is for you. 14For the love of Christ controls us, having concluded this, that one died for all, therefore all died;
​

Just as The Christ stated, I do and say what the Father does and speaks ( John 5:19, 12:50)

15and He died for all, so that they who live might no longer live for themselves, but for Him who died and rose again on their behalf.
​

Paul also believed in unlimited atonement, but limited redemption.

16Therefore from now on we recognize no one according to the flesh; even though we have known Christ according to the flesh, yet now we know Him in this way no longer. 17Therefore if anyone is in Christ, he is a new creature; the old things passed away; behold, new things have come. 18Now all these things are from God, who reconciled us to Himself through Christ and gave us the ministry of reconciliation, 19namely, that God was in Christ reconciling the world to Himself, not counting their trespasses against them, and He has committed to us the word of reconciliation.
​

Supper important to recognize that it was in fact God in Christ that reconciled us to HIMSELF, not to Christ, not to the Spirit, but to God. Though the trinity stand as three persons as the very unity, the reconciliation of God to humankind was not an act alone by any one member of the trinity.

This is one reason the typical teaching of the wrath of God poured out upon Christ is a failed teaching. The thinking actually makes of God some monster of split personality. Paul in the above statement refutes such teaching.

20Therefore, we are ambassadors for Christ, as though God were making an appeal through us; we beg you on behalf of Christ, be reconciled to God. 21He made Him who knew no sin to be sin on our behalf, so that we might become the righteousness of God in Him.

​

Sometimes in the statements on posts, one will take the 21st verse as if it is a stand alone statement.

Rather it is formulated based upon first the form of humanity, then the form of humanity in complete unique unity with God (Christ), then it shows that believers are also as Christ in that unique new creation that is specific to heavenly estate, then it shows that ALL this was from God, by God, and through God.

Sometimes in reading, I find my self perplexed that folks want to separate the God into little packages that do not mingle as if eggs, oil, water, and mix blended together do not make a cake!

Jesus IS God, the Holy Spirit IS God, the Father IS God. God is ONE God, not three just as the Scriptures state: "Here oh Israel, the Lord our God is ONE" Deut. 6:4 and repeated in Mark 12, restated in John 10 as "I and the Father are ONE," and Paul says in Romans 3 "there is ONE God."


Ok, I just thought it important in the discussion on attributes that everyone come to agreement that God is inseparable.

The work of redemption, the work of the Cross was the work of God. It was NOT God punishing himself, or taking on some wrath, but that work of reconciliation.

Most folks cling to the RCC thinking of the wrath of God needing some sort of remedy.

As if God needs some remedy to resolve some human issue!

 

[The Biblicist]

Perhaps it would be best to look at 2 Corinthians 5 and see if you both need to consider a very slight adjustment into closer agreement.

1For we know that if the earthly tent which is our house is torn down, we have a building from God, a house not made with hands, eternal in the heavens. 2For indeed in this house we groan, longing to be clothed with our dwelling from heaven,
​

Just as was the Word in bodily form.

3inasmuch as we, having put it on, will not be found naked. 4For indeed while we are in this tent, we groan, being burdened, because we do not want to be unclothed but to be clothed, so that what is mortal will be swallowed up by life. 5Now He who prepared us for this very purpose is God, who gave to us the Spirit as a pledge.
​

The BODY that clothed the Word was in such a state: As Hebrew paraphrasing the statements of Psalm 40 states, "...a body you prepared for me."

6Therefore, being always of good courage, and knowing that while we are at home in the body we are absent from the Lord— 7for we walk by faith, not by sight— 8we are of good courage, I say, and prefer rather to be absent from the body and to be at home with the Lord. 9Therefore we also have as our ambition, whether at home or absent, to be pleasing to Him. 10For we must all appear before the judgment seat of Christ, so that each one may be recompensed for his deeds in the body, according to what he has done, whether good or bad.

11Therefore, knowing the fear of the Lord, we persuade men, but we are made manifest to God; and I hope that we are made manifest also in your consciences. 12We are not again commending ourselves to you but are giving you an occasion to be proud of us, so that you will have an answer for those who take pride in appearance and not in heart. 13For if we are beside ourselves, it is for God; if we are of sound mind, it is for you. 14For the love of Christ controls us, having concluded this, that one died for all, therefore all died;​

The primary problem I have with your assessment is that our body clothes a HUMAN spirit which is inseparable from human nature whereas the body of Christ clothed a Divine preexistent Spirit in addition to clothing a human spirit as part of human nature.

the former is totally human in nature whereas the latter is not but demands two different natures coexisting in one person.

Perhaps the divine Spirit resided in spiritual union with the human spirit as in the case of new birth but without removal or changing of sinful nature but simple spiritual union with the human spirit. Thus, the Divine nature coexisted with the human spirit in Jesus without confusing either or denying either.​