The Two Natures of Christ

[Martin Marprelate]

Excerpts from the Baptist 1689 Confession.
1:3._____ In this divine and infinite Being there are three subsistences [i.e. Persons. M.M.], the Father, the Word or Son, and Holy Spirit, of one substance, power, and eternity, each having the whole divine essence, yet the essence undivided: the Father is of none, neither begotten nor proceeding; the Son is eternally begotten of the Father; the Holy Spirit proceeding from the Father and the Son; all infinite, without beginning, therefore but one God, who is not to be divided in nature and being, but distinguished by several peculiar relative properties and personal relations; which doctrine of the Trinity is the foundation of all our communion with God, and comfortable dependence on him.
( 1 John 5:7; Matthew 28:19; 2 Corinthians 13:14; Exodus 3:14; John 14:11; 1 Corinthians 8:6; John 1:14,18; John 15:26; Galatians 4:6 )

8:2._____ 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.
( John 1:14; Galatians 4;4; Romans 8:3; Hebrews 2:14, 16, 17; Hebrews 4:15; Matthew 1:22, 23; Luke 1:27, 31, 35; Romans 9:5; 1 Timothy 2:5 )

I have posted these to point out that the 17th Century Baptists were Chalcedonians, as was Spurgeon who revived the Confession in the 19th Century. Also, here are several texts given to support the declarations made.

'In attempting to resolve the mystery of Christ's person, human wisdom has invented many counterfeit teachings. Docetism denied that Christ was a real man, Arianism denied that Christ was really God. Apollonarianism denied that Christ had a human soul, teaching that the Word took the place of the human soul. Nestorianism denied that Christ was only one Person, teaching that since He possessed two natures, He must be two Persons. Eutychianism, the monophysite heresy, denied that Christ had two distinct natures, teaching that He had only one nature composed of a mixture of deity and humanity. Divine truth surpasses all such human wisdom. The attempts to explain the mystery, to resolve the tension, have always resulted in heresy. The creeds of the Church in which such heresy has been rejected are simply fences built by the Church to prevent desecration of this holy mystery by proud human reason. Yet though such doctrines transcend human reason, only tis doctrine of the Person of Christ can satisfy human need. Only one who is both God and man could be a substitute for men, and in a few short hours on the cross satisfy the wrath of a holy God.' [Samuel E. Waldron: A Modern Exposition of the 1689 Baptist Confession of Faith][edited]

 

[Martin Marprelate]

I posted this on another thread earlier this evening to prove the two natures of Christ from Scripture, but unfortunately the thread was almost immediately closed. I repeat it here:

Well, fortunately, Mark 4:35-41 and the parallel passages in Matthew and Luke are perfectly sufficient to do that.
The Lord Jesus goes to sleep. Why does He sleep? Because He is tired and weary. But 'Do you not know? Have you not heard? [apparently not ] The LORD is the everlasting God, the Creator of the ends of the earth. He will not grow tired or weary' (Isaiah 53:28). There was a human nature within Christ that could grow tired. It was entirely unaffected by His divine nature.
But then the storm arises and the disciples come to Him in fear. 'Then He arose and rebuked the wind, and said to the waves, "Peace, be still!" And the wind ceased and there was a great calm. Now is that something that human nature can do? Yes or no? Is it something that divine nature can do? Yes, and entirely unaffected by human nature. 'O God of our salvation........You who still the noise of the seas, the noise of the waves....' (Psalms 65:5-7; c.f. Psalms 89:9).

Thus two separate natures are present in Christ. case proved.

 

[agedman]

I posted this on another thread earlier this evening to prove the two natures of Christ from Scripture, but unfortunately the thread was almost immediately closed. I repeat it here:

Well, fortunately, Mark 4:35-41 and the parallel passages in Matthew and Luke are perfectly sufficient to do that.
The Lord Jesus goes to sleep. Why does He sleep? Because He is tired and weary. But 'Do you not know? Have you not heard? [apparently not ] The LORD is the everlasting God, the Creator of the ends of the earth. He will not grow tired or weary' (Isaiah 53:28). There was a human nature within Christ that could grow tired. It was entirely unaffected by His divine nature.
But then the storm arises and the disciples come to Him in fear. 'Then He arose and rebuked the wind, and said to the waves, "Peace, be still!" And the wind ceased and there was a great calm. Now is that something that human nature can do? Yes or no? Is it something that divine nature can do? Yes, and entirely unaffected by human nature. 'O God of our salvation........You who still the noise of the seas, the noise of the waves....' (Psalms 65:5-7; c.f. Psalms 89:9).

Thus two separate natures are present in Christ. case proved.

I would disagree on the words “inside Christ”.

The nature of the body is to have cycles of sleep, hunger, thirst,...

But they are not particularly or even peculiar to “human nature”; rather such is constant with all life forms.

What in modern times we associate with nature, the ancients viewed as endowments.

So, the intangibles such a intellect, skillful ness, talent, ... were considered endowments or gifts.

For example: when the construction of the tabernacle was to begin, Moses was told to seek certain, and even given the name of one to use. The nature of these folks was no different than any other, but the endowment of gift was remarkable.

The Scriptures state that humans were made in the image and likeness of God.

Paul states that Christ, “though he was in the form of God, did not count equality with God a thing to be grasped, 7but emptied himself, by taking the form of a servant, being born in the likeness of men.”

That is as John states, “ 14And the Word became flesh and dwelt among us, and we have seen his glory, glory as of the only Sond from the Father, full of grace and truth.“

And later in life, John wrote, “That which was from the beginning, which we have heard, which we have seen with our eyes, which we looked upon and have touched with our hands, concerning the word of life...”

Therefore, the nature of humankind was that which is distinguishing humans from other life forms.

Because sin of the first Adam marred the image of God, the the Second Adam was formed “as a servant” but also had the fullness of God. Not two minds but one. Not two wills but one, not two intellects, two sets of endowments butone...

It is not Scriptural to place the “holy one” as other than that first Adam prior to the fall. Christ is God made in the image (the physical attributes) of man.

 

[JonC]

Excerpts from the Baptist 1689 Confession.
1:3._____ In this divine and infinite Being there are three subsistences [i.e. Persons. M.M.], the Father, the Word or Son, and Holy Spirit, of one substance, power, and eternity, each having the whole divine essence, yet the essence undivided: the Father is of none, neither begotten nor proceeding; the Son is eternally begotten of the Father; the Holy Spirit proceeding from the Father and the Son; all infinite, without beginning, therefore but one God, who is not to be divided in nature and being, but distinguished by several peculiar relative properties and personal relations; which doctrine of the Trinity is the foundation of all our communion with God, and comfortable dependence on him.
( 1 John 5:7; Matthew 28:19; 2 Corinthians 13:14; Exodus 3:14; John 14:11; 1 Corinthians 8:6; John 1:14,18; John 15:26; Galatians 4:6 )

8:2._____ 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.
( John 1:14; Galatians 4;4; Romans 8:3; Hebrews 2:14, 16, 17; Hebrews 4:15; Matthew 1:22, 23; Luke 1:27, 31, 35; Romans 9:5; 1 Timothy 2:5 )

I have posted these to point out that the 17th Century Baptists were Chalcedonians, as was Spurgeon who revived the Confession in the 19th Century. Also, here are several texts given to support the declarations made.

'In attempting to resolve the mystery of Christ's person, human wisdom has invented many counterfeit teachings. Docetism denied that Christ was a real man, Arianism denied that Christ was really God. Apollonarianism denied that Christ had a human soul, teaching that the Word took the place of the human soul. Nestorianism denied that Christ was only one Person, teaching that since He possessed two natures, He must be two Persons. Eutychianism, the monophysite heresy, denied that Christ had two distinct natures, teaching that He had only one nature composed of a mixture of deity and humanity. Divine truth surpasses all such human wisdom. The attempts to explain the mystery, to resolve the tension, have always resulted in heresy. The creeds of the Church in which such heresy has been rejected are simply fences built by the Church to prevent desecration of this holy mystery by proud human reason. Yet though such doctrines transcend human reason, only tis doctrine of the Person of Christ can satisfy human need. Only one who is both God and man could be a substitute for men, and in a few short hours on the cross satisfy the wrath of a holy God.' [Samuel E. Waldron: A Modern Exposition of the 1689 Baptist Confession of Faith][edited]

Hi Martin.

I think that you may have a very interesting thread here. It is always fun and edifying to explore historic theology and see exactly how people in the past dealt with issues contemporary to them. As I’m sure you know from reading about earlier history the Chalcedonian creed was far from uncontroversial. It addressed heresies but at the same time it caused some to accuse that counsel of heresy (they were accused of approaching Nestorianism in principle, a charge I happen to affirm). I’ve often wondered how much was legitimate and how much was simply inferred by other parties (Arminius is a good study on that topic).

Personally I think the Council did a good job at compromising the positions. That said, it is dangerous because it has led to defacto heresy (Jesus suffered in his human nature but not his divine kind of thinking). I dont think it was approaching Nestorianism then (but I am not sure). Now, however, it is right at its door.

Anyway, the term “Baptist” is not a denomination but I do agree that many Baptists hold to the creed and the understanding you have presented here. That said, I don’t.

I believe that the Catholic Church ceased being a true church early in the 4th Century. So I affirm the Nicene Creed as reflective of my understanding of what the Bible says about the doctrine of the Trinity. But the Chalcedonian Counsel was over a century later. So obviously can’t offer much to a discussion about the Fourth Ecumenical Council because I believe it already apostate by that time in Church History.

I understand many things are affirmed by Protestants in general and Baptists in particular that come out of this type of environment. And value such studies. For me the authority (not just the final authority but the only authority in actual doctrine) is Scripture.

My only interest in studying the doctrines of the Catholic Church, and really the Early Church Fathers, is for its historical content and to see how they dealt with theology. I can learn from them, but only very cautiously. And I never use them for doctrine.

I have nothing to contribute, no interest in learning why people believe Jesus has two natures, and I really don’t think I can handle reading that Jesus suffered in his human nature but walked on water in his divine nature. For me this type of thinking strikes at the very heart of the cross and tramples the blood shed for us. There is no benefit, for me, to subject myself to such philosophy.

Perhaps in the future, when the creeds are a bit behind us, we can discuss this strictly from Scripture. In fact, I will invite you to do that with me if you are so inclined in 2019.

In Christ,

John

 

[agedman]

I have nothing to contribute, no interest in learning why people believe Jesus has two natures, and I really don’t think I can handle reading that Jesus suffered in his human nature but walked on water in his divine nature. For me this type of thinking strikes at the very heart of the cross and tramples the blood shed for us. There is no benefit, for me, to subject myself to such philosophy.

This is the crux of why I do not that Christ was controlled or had to subjugate his the divine.

The first Adam had no such conflict prior to the fall.

There was no battle of the wills of flesh versus Devine in the Garden no avoidance but total submission displayed. Of course the question was ask, “if it be your will...” but that does not conform to some timidity or avoidance desire. It did speak to others that the crucifixion was God’s imperative as well as the resurrection.

One must not relegate “The Holy One” to less then Holy.

 

[JonC]

This is the crux of why I do not that Christ was controlled or had to subjugate his the divine.

The first Adam had no such conflict prior to the fall.

There was no battle of the wills of flesh versus Devine in the Garden no avoidance but total submission displayed. Of course the question was ask, “if it be your will...” but that does not conform to some timidity or avoidance desire. It did speak to others that the crucifixion was God’s imperative as well as the resurrection.

One must not relegate “The Holy One” to less then Holy.

Before (on another thread) I was trying to make a point about the contemporary argument which I opposed. And I am sure I went too far concerning the ancient creed.

The Chalcedonian creed was an attempt to correct heresies. The problem is not the creed itself but how it is taken today. I do not believe the creed was ever meant as a source for doctrine, but instead purposed to guard against heresy. The point is that the Incarnation did not render Jesus’ in such a way as to be less than God, and Jesus’ divinity does not render Jesus’ as being more than man. This is absolutely true, and we summarize this as Jesus being 100% God and 100% man.

We have natures, and natures are descriptive of us. But we do not experience things “in our nature”. We experience things in our person.

The issue is that this “neo-Chalcedonianism” which some are advancing substitutes the idea of “person” for the idea of “nature”. On the surface it affirms Jesus as having both a human nature and a divine nature. But in practice, it is Nestorianism.

 

[agedman]

By having two completely separate natures including “personhood” (wills, thoughts, emotions....) it cannot be consistent with the hypostatic union. This is were some carry the “two natures” to the extreme, and inconsistent with aspects of early Greek influenced philosophy.

For example 700 years before chalcedonian creed was Plato. In simple terms he presented good human nature as the physical lived out in introspection (self examination).


Paul stated, “...examine yourselves ....”. There has always been the physical and the spiritual understood as two separate but united in the humanhood of how God created us all.

The Greek thinking was that the examination, the intellectual exercising, was not the human nature (the physical), but the determination of how good the human nature (the physical) was living or the value of the nature (the physical).

Again by recal which is at best frail, the word “physis” from which we get “physical” and was used by pre -chalcedonian creed teaching rather than “natura” (nature’s). Modern folks seem to smush the two into a single unit.


It is typically understood that politics and power struggles were the greater part of the influencers of the chalcedonian creed, which is why I hold it loosely and rely more toward the light of the earlier teaching of the incarnation rather than how some have expressed the two “natures” in some posts.
.

To put it into terms of the typical modern thinker, the rejection of the Chacedonian creed’s esteem is not disputing the earlier teaching of the union of 100% human physical body to 100% the Word. “The Word became flesh...” is therefore held in higher regard (imo). This was the teaching from Antioch, and the more closely aligned with conservative or literal rendering from Scriptures.

In contrast to the Antioch teaching (which was and is particular about preciseness - the Antioch school of thinking on matters of Christology was dominate from the time of the apostles until the chalcedonian creed) of the Scriptures, the chalcedonian creed power play folks (who were aligned more toward the Alexandrian school) ended up splitting the church.

Btw, the earliest use of the word “trinity” comes from a work by Theophilus a leader of the Antioc School in the second century. This is not the Theophilus that Luke addressed his writing, nor the Theophulis of the 400’s.

Enough history on with the thread!

Isn’t history boring?

 

[agedman]

In the confession, I have not ever been comfortable with the words "...common infirmities thereof...".

Infirmities come from the fallen estate of the human condition, and Christ was not a fallen creation, but as the first Adam without infirmities. Again, the Lord Jesus Christ pronounced to may as "the Holy One."

That said, the "Chalcedonian creed" was NOT the first to present, " ...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."

What was prior to the Chalcedonian creed was the same thinking, but in terms of the FLESH as the Scriptures state. "...taking the form of man..." as Philippians 2 states, "...a body you prepared for me...: as Psalms 40 states, "...the Word became flesh..." as John states.

What some want is to insert personality, intellect, thinking, things which the flesh have available, but not particular or peculiar to the flesh. The flesh consists of blood, bones, innards, that which as John states can be touched, handled, seen,...

What I think some desire is to place the endowment of God (intellect, personality, skill, ...) as part of the human nature and not as gifts from God.

We are all created equal in that we all have a flesh body, but we are not all equally endowed by the creator with the same skill sets, the same intellectual ability, the same personality.

To even consider that the Christ had two mind sets, to personalities, two skill sets, ... is NOT what was taught by the earliest accounts of the church.

Rather, the earliest hypostatic union taught was that of the 100% human FLESH as existed prior to the fall was placed in union with the 100 % Christ who was the creator and sustainer of all that was ever made.

The Lord Jesus Christ did not have split personality in any form.

 

[Martin Marprelate]

I would disagree on the words “inside Christ”.

I have read my post #2 through three times, but I cannot find the words "inside Christ." Help me out!

The nature of the body is to have cycles of sleep, hunger, thirst,...

But they are not particularly or even peculiar to “human nature”; rather such is constant with all life forms.

But I am not claiming that Jesus Christ had a mouse nature or an elephant nature. I am claiming on the basis of these Scriptures (to start with) that Christ has a divine nature and a human nature. Now it is not part of the divine nature to grow tired or weary (Isaiah 40:28), nor indeed to sleep (Psalm 121:4). So if Christ does not have a human nature (or mouse, or elephant!), why did He need to sleep? Sleep is natural for humans; I understand that it is necessary for a healthy life, so it must be part of our nature.

What in modern times we associate with nature, the ancients viewed as endowments.

So, the intangibles such a intellect, skillfulness, talent, ... were considered endowments or gifts.

For example: when the construction of the tabernacle was to begin, Moses was told to seek certain, and even given the name of one to use. The nature of these folks was no different than any other, but the endowment of gift was remarkable.

What has this to do with weariness? It cannot possibly be considered in the same light as a skill or talent. Clever people need sleep; so do stupid people.

The Scriptures state that humans were made in the image and likeness of God.

Paul states that Christ, “though he was in the form of God, did not count equality with God a thing to be grasped, 7but emptied himself, by taking the form of a servant, being born in the likeness of men.”

You will be aware that the term 'emptied Himself' is not considered acceptable to many Christians. He became Man, but He did not cease to be God or to empty Himself of His divinity. Hence you have 'made Himself nothing' in the NIV and 'made Himself of no reputation' in the NKJV.

That is as John states, “ 14And the Word became flesh and dwelt among us, and we have seen his glory, glory as of the only Sond from the Father, full of grace and truth.“

And later in life, John wrote, “That which was from the beginning, which we have heard, which we have seen with our eyes, which we looked upon and have touched with our hands, concerning the word of life...”

Therefore, the nature of humankind was that which is distinguishing humans from other life forms.

I don't follow your 'therefore.' Weariness and needing sleep is something all men suffer from; it is part of human nature. The fact that animals have the same need does not prevent it from being a human need, unless one wishes to say that Christ's nature was indeed that of a mouse, elephant, ape.........

But temptation is part of human nature: we are all tempted and tested one way or another, whereas animals are not so. Now God 'cannot be tempted by evil, nor does He Himself tempt anyone' (James 1:13). Yet Christ 'was in all points tempted as we are, yet without sin' (Hebrews 4:15). Christ was tempted by Satan as the second Adam. I do not believe that He could have succumbed to it, but that does not make the temptation any less real. If you heat pure gold up to 400 degrees or whatever, you will still get no dross or imputity from it, but that does not make the heat any less real.

Because sin of the first Adam marred the image of God, the the Second Adam was formed “as a servant” but also had the fullness of God. Not two minds but one. Not two wills but one, not two intellects, two sets of endowments but one...

It is not Scriptural to place the “holy one” as other than that first Adam prior to the fall. Christ is God made in the image (the physical attributes) of man.

I refer you to our Lord's favourite term for Himself, "Son of man," and also to 1 Corinthians 15:21, 'For since by man came death, by Man also came the resurrection of the dead.' I also refer you to Acts 17:31 and especially 1 Timothy 2:5 which both refer to the Lord Jesus Christ as a Man. 'For there is one God, and one mediator between God and men, the Man Christ Jesus.'

 

[JonC]

Very good point.

We do not grow hungry or tired "in our natures." These are bodily. God does not create, calm the storm, or walk on water in his nature.

We don't experience some things in our "old nature" and other things in our "new nature".

To say Christ suffered in his "human nature" and calmed the sea in his "divine nature" is to supplement "person" for "nature". Once you scratch the surface is Nestorianism.

 

[Yeshua1]

I posted this on another thread earlier this evening to prove the two natures of Christ from Scripture, but unfortunately the thread was almost immediately closed. I repeat it here:

Well, fortunately, Mark 4:35-41 and the parallel passages in Matthew and Luke are perfectly sufficient to do that.
The Lord Jesus goes to sleep. Why does He sleep? Because He is tired and weary. But 'Do you not know? Have you not heard? [apparently not ] The LORD is the everlasting God, the Creator of the ends of the earth. He will not grow tired or weary' (Isaiah 53:28). There was a human nature within Christ that could grow tired. It was entirely unaffected by His divine nature.
But then the storm arises and the disciples come to Him in fear. 'Then He arose and rebuked the wind, and said to the waves, "Peace, be still!" And the wind ceased and there was a great calm. Now is that something that human nature can do? Yes or no? Is it something that divine nature can do? Yes, and entirely unaffected by human nature. 'O God of our salvation........You who still the noise of the seas, the noise of the waves....' (Psalms 65:5-7; c.f. Psalms 89:9).

Thus two separate natures are present in Christ. case proved.

IF Jesus was just having the nature of God alone, why would he ever get tired, weak, hungry, or even be able to get killed off?
And why even have that Ole Virgin birth in order to bypass the fall of Adam and sinful humanity if jesus never even was fully Human? Can He be full human and yet have no human nature then?

 

[JonC]

IF Jesus was just having the nature of God alone, why would he ever get tired, weak, hungry, or even be able to get killed off?
And why even have that Ole Virgin birth in order to bypass the fall of Adam and sinful humanity if jesus never even was fully Human? Can He be full human and yet have no human nature then?

Pauline theology teaches that you, as a believer, have two natures. Which one do you hunger in?

 

[Yeshua1]

Pauline theology teaches that you, as a believer, have two natures. Which one do you hunger in?

I have a sin nature and the new nature in Christ, don't you?

 

[Yeshua1]

Very good point.

We do not grow hungry or tired "in our natures." These are bodily. God does not create, calm the storm, or walk on water in his nature.

We don't experience some things in our "old nature" and other things in our "new nature".

To say Christ suffered in his "human nature" and calmed the sea in his "divine nature" is to supplement "person" for "nature". Once you scratch the surface is Nestorianism.

Jesus received his humanity from mary, sinless due to the Virgin Birth, correct?

 

[JonC]

I have a sin nature and the new nature in Christ, don't you?

Which one gets hungry?

When you eat which nature are you using?

Which nature do you use to sleep?

 

[Yeshua1]

Which one gets hungry?

When you eat which nature are you using?

Which nature do you use to sleep?

So you no longer have the sin nature?

 

[Yeshua1]

Hi Martin.

I think that you may have a very interesting thread here. It is always fun and edifying to explore historic theology and see exactly how people in the past dealt with issues contemporary to them. As I’m sure you know from reading about earlier history the Chalcedonian creed was far from uncontroversial. It addressed heresies but at the same time it caused some to accuse that counsel of heresy (they were accused of approaching Nestorianism in principle, a charge I happen to affirm). I’ve often wondered how much was legitimate and how much was simply inferred by other parties (Arminius is a good study on that topic).

Personally I think the Council did a good job at compromising the positions. That said, it is dangerous because it has led to defacto heresy (Jesus suffered in his human nature but not his divine kind of thinking). I dont think it was approaching Nestorianism then (but I am not sure). Now, however, it is right at its door.

Anyway, the term “Baptist” is not a denomination but I do agree that many Baptists hold to the creed and the understanding you have presented here. That said, I don’t.

I believe that the Catholic Church ceased being a true church early in the 4th Century. So I affirm the Nicene Creed as reflective of my understanding of what the Bible says about the doctrine of the Trinity. But the Chalcedonian Counsel was over a century later. So obviously can’t offer much to a discussion about the Fourth Ecumenical Council because I believe it already apostate by that time in Church History.

I understand many things are affirmed by Protestants in general and Baptists in particular that come out of this type of environment. And value such studies. For me the authority (not just the final authority but the only authority in actual doctrine) is Scripture.

My only interest in studying the doctrines of the Catholic Church, and really the Early Church Fathers, is for its historical content and to see how they dealt with theology. I can learn from them, but only very cautiously. And I never use them for doctrine.

I have nothing to contribute, no interest in learning why people believe Jesus has two natures, and I really don’t think I can handle reading that Jesus suffered in his human nature but walked on water in his divine nature. For me this type of thinking strikes at the very heart of the cross and tramples the blood shed for us. There is no benefit, for me, to subject myself to such philosophy.

Perhaps in the future, when the creeds are a bit behind us, we can discuss this strictly from Scripture. In fact, I will invite you to do that with me if you are so inclined in 2019.

In Christ,

John

So Jesus did not need to be Virgin Born in order to bypass the sin nature of the fall, as he is just the nature of God then? How can one be human and have no humanity? Doe he have a soul? A will?

 

[Yeshua1]

Pauline theology teaches that you, as a believer, have two natures. Which one do you hunger in?

The physical nature, as my new nature is dealing with spiritual component!

 

[JonC]

The physical nature, as my new nature is dealing with spiritual component!

So the "physical nature" is what Paul called the "old nature", the sinful nature? And you feed this "old nature"? You eat and sleep with this "old nature"???

 

[Yeshua1]

So the "physical nature" is what Paul called the "old nature", the sinful nature? And you feed this "old nature"? You eat and sleep with this "old nature"???

Do you still have the sin nature then?