Hypostatic Union

[JonC]

Hypostasis is the Greek word for "substance"
The Hypostatic Union is the doctrine dealing with the nature of Jesus.

Here is the actual statement:

Therefore, following the holy fathers, we all with one accord teach men to acknowledge one and the same Son, our Lord Jesus Christ, at once complete in Godhead and complete in manhood, truly God and truly man, consisting also of a reasonable soul and body; of one substance with the Father as regards his Godhead, and at the same time of one substance with us as regards his manhood; like us in all respects, apart from sin; as regards his Godhead, begotten of the Father before the ages, but yet as regards his manhood begotten, for us men and for our salvation, of Mary the Virgin, the God-bearer; one and the same Christ, Son, Lord, Only-begotten, recognized in two natures, without confusion, without change, without division, without separation; the distinction of natures being in no way annulled by the union, but rather the characteristics of each nature being preserved and coming together to form one person and subsistence, not as parted or separated into two persons, but one and the same Son and Only-begotten God the Word, Lord Jesus Christ; even as the prophets from earliest times spoke of him, and our Lord Jesus Christ himself taught us, and the creed of the fathers has handed down to us.


The part of thus doctrine that has been challenged recently is that Jesus is recognized in two natures, without confusion, without change, without division, without separation; the distinction of natures being in no way annulled by the union, but rather the characteristics of each nature being preserved and coming together to form one person and subsistence, not as parted or separated into two persons, but one and the same Son and Only-begotten God the Word, Lord Jesus Christ.

We often represent this by saying Jesus is 100% God, 100% man.

Recently @SavedByGrace and @37818 have suggest a different view - that Jesus has two natures (one being 100% God and the other being 100% man with Jesus adding a human nature as a second nature).

This, obviously, contradicts orthodox Christianity. Rather than Jesus being represented in the union of two natures in one substance, you end up with Jesus having one 100% God nature and one 100% human nature (50% God and 50% man).

Mathematically this makes sence. But Biblically I do not believe they can support the position.

 

[SavedByGrace]

Jon, like the essential Doctrine of Penal Substitution, which you very wrongly reject, the very passage that you quote from, actually proves that you are also wrong on the Person of Jesus Christ!

My first point from the passage that you quote, which looks like from a "creed" of the early Church, has blatant heresy in it. The words, "as regards his Godhead, begotten of the Father before the ages", is blasphemy! This is clear subordination of Jesus Christ to the Father in the Essential Godhead, which is IMPOSSIBLE!

Secondly, you write here, that what I believe "contradicts orthodox Christianity", by saying, that Jesus Christ after His Conception in the Virgin Mary, while He remained 100% Almighty God, in His Divine nature, did take upon Himself 100% the very Nature of us humans, as derived from the Virgin Mary. The exception being that Jesus Christ' Human Nature is 100% sinless.

In the very passage that you quote, we read these words, "the God-bearer; one and the same Christ, Son, Lord, Only-begotten, recognized in two natures...distinction of natures...each nature being preserved and coming together to form one person and subsistence"

This teaches EXACTLY what I have been saying all along! Two distinct natures, in One Person, Jesus Christ The God-Man. 100% God in His Divine Nature, and 100% Man in His Human Nature, sin excepted! Jesus Christ is NOT "partly God", and "partly Man", where He is "missing" anything, but BOTH in their completeness, sin excepted.

Thirdly, you say, "Mathematically this makes sense. But Biblically I do not believe they can support the position". Here too you are very wrong!

The passage I have referred to many times, has been totally ignored, which I believe teaches exactly what I believe.

“Have this mind in you, which was also in Christ Jesus: who, being in the very Nature of God, counted it not a prize to be on an equality with God, but emptied Himself, taking the very Nature of a servant, being made in the likeness of men; and being found in fashion as a Man, he humbled Himself, becoming obedient [even] unto death, yea, the death of the cross" (Philippians 2:5-8)

Here we read of Jesus Christ as "BEING in the very Nature of God", which is from all eternity. The participle Greek “υπαρχων” is in the masculine singular, and present tense. Though the actual meaning here, is not in the "present", but "imperfect" tense, which is used for, "original and continued action". Examples of this use are clear in Acts 7:55; Acts 14:8; Galatians 2:4, etc. It speaks of Jesus Christ Who IS always in "the very Nature of God", and not as some heretically teach, that Jesus "laid aside His Divine Nature", and Walked this earth as a "mere man", Who had godly qualities! This also his blatant heresy.

I will also add here, that the Greek noun "“μορφὴ", used here twice, and translated in most versions as "form", does not mean as defined by the Unitarian J H Thayer in his Greek lexicon, “the form by which a person or thing strikes the vision; the external appearance”. Or that of Professor Danker does, “μορφὴ ϑεοῦ signifies a divine air/demeanor Phil 2:6, in contrast to μορφὴ δουλοῦ slavish demeanor vs. 7”. This is NOT what the Apostle Paul means! Rather, the meaning here, as in the other only place where this noun is used in the Greek New Testament, Mark 16:12 (εν ετερα μορφη), denotes the "essential nature"; or, as Mounce and the NIV, etc, have it, “very nature”.

Next we have, “οὐχ ἁρπαγμὸν ἡγήσατο”, = “considered it not a thing to be grasped”.

In the original sense, “ἁρπαγμὸν”, has the meaning of “the act of seizing”, hence the reading of Versions like the KJV, etc. However, the noun can also be used in a passive sense, rather than active, with the meaning, “to be grasped”, or “held on to”. This phrase, “οὐχ ἁρπαγμὸν ἡγήσατο”, must be taken with, “τὸ εἶναι ἴσα θεῷ”, which is translated, “to be equal with God”. “ἴσα” is in the neuter plural, and used as an adverb, with the meaning, “on equal terms, without advantage to either side”.

We then have, “ἀλλὰ ἑαυτὸν ἐκένωσεν μορφὴν δούλου λαβών”. literally, “but Himself emptied the very nature of a bond-servant having taken”. This “emptying” that Paul speaks of, is because Jesus Christ “took upon Himself”, the “very nature of a bond-servant”. The “emptying” has nothing to do with “μορφὴ ϑεοῦ”, which we have seen from, “υπαρχων”, is a continued existence. “ἐκένωσεν”, is from, “κενόω”, literally, “to empty”. The one Who does the “emptying”, is Jesus Christ “Himself”. What is “κενόω” used here for? There is a passage in the Greek writer, Herodotus, where he uses this verb, as “stripped” (see, LSJ, Greek lexicon). The meaning of “strip” here, as defined in Webster’s, “to divest of honors, privileges, or functions”. Clearly from this passage in Philippians 2, we read of Jesus Christ as “stripping Himself of the honor and privilege”, that He had with the Father from all eternity, by becoming the God-Man. As Weymouth’s New Testament rightly reads, “He stripped Himself of His glory”. God cannot cease to be God, and Jesus Christ, Who IS Almighty God, cannot for any time, not be God! “μορφὴν δούλου”, is in the same way “μορφὴ ϑεοῦ” is understood, as the “very nature” of a human, except sin. One Person, Jesus Christ, verse 5, Two “natures”, God and Man, at His Incarnation, verse 6-7.

Next, “εν ομοιωματι ανθρωπων γενομενος”, that is, “being born in the likeness of man”. What does Paul mean here, by “likeness”? This does not mean that the “human nature” of Jesus Christ, was unreal, and just a phantom, as some in the early Church taught. To understand what this means, we can look at another verse in Paul, Romans 8:3, “For what the law could not do, in that it was weak through the flesh, God, sending his own Son in the likeness of sinful flesh, and for sin, condemned sin in the flesh”. Same Greek word, “ὁμοίωμα”, (to resemble). The “human nature” of Jesus Christ, is very real, but, it is without any sin, which is not true of any human being ever born. In Matthew 1:16, we read, “Mary, of whom was born Jesus, who is called Christ”. The Greek is very important, “ἐξ ἧς”, literally, “out of HER”, feminine, singular, which shows that Mary was the biological “mother” of Jesus Christ, Who actually derived His “human nature” from her. This is also seen in Luke 1:35, “therefore also that Holy Child Who shall be born of thee (ἐκ σοῦ, singular, “out of you”) shall be called the Son of God”

In the Greek of Romans 2:3, Paul is very careful in how he writes. He says, “κατεκρινε την αμαρτιαν εν τη σαρκ”, “condemned sin in the flesh”. Had he written, “κατεκρινε την αμαρτιαν την εν τη σαρκ”, this would have made sin in the flesh of Jesus Christ. It is clear from both these passages taken together, what Paul does mean when he says, “in the likeness of man”.

“And being found in fashion as a man”, Weymouth translates, “And being recognized as truly human”. “σχῆμα”, here translated as “fashion”, is more than just the “outward appearance”. It also is used for, “character, characteristic propetry”, that which makes a “real human”. When those who lived with Jesus looked at Him, they “saw” a real human being like themselves. But, in His One Person, He was the God-Man, 100% God and 100% Man, except for sin.

Then we have Jesus’ “submission” to God the Father, “He humbled Himself by becoming obedient to the point of death, even death on a cross”. This “obedience”, is “μέχρῐ”, “till the end of His life”, “as long as”. At which point in time, that “submission” to the Father was ended. This is what the passage in Hebrew 2:9 says, that it was for “a little while”, that Jesus was “made lower than the angels”, for the duration of His Incarnate Life on earth.

This is my beliefs, which is what the Bible, as I have shown, clearly teaches. I am very open to be shown to be in error, but only from the 66 Books of the Inspired, Infallible, Word of Almighty God, The Holy Bible.

 

[Marooncat79]

I knew what was coming after I read the headlines

it’s amazing that he denies 2000 yrs of Xian history on so many points

Interesting is the term that I will use

 

[JonC]

Jon, like the essential Doctrine of Penal Substitution, which you very wrongly reject, the very passage that you quote from, actually proves that you are also wrong on the Person of Jesus Christ!

My first point from the passage that you quote, which looks like from a "creed" of the early Church, has blatant heresy in it. The words, "as regards his Godhead, begotten of the Father before the ages", is blasphemy! This is clear subordination of Jesus Christ to the Father in the Essential Godhead, which is IMPOSSIBLE!

Secondly, you write here, that what I believe "contradicts orthodox Christianity", by saying, that Jesus Christ after His Conception in the Virgin Mary, while He remained 100% Almighty God, in His Divine nature, did take upon Himself 100% the very Nature of us humans, as derived from the Virgin Mary. The exception being that Jesus Christ' Human Nature is 100% sinless.

In the very passage that you quote, we read these words, "the God-bearer; one and the same Christ, Son, Lord, Only-begotten, recognized in two natures...distinction of natures...each nature being preserved and coming together to form one person and subsistence"

This teaches EXACTLY what I have been saying all along! Two distinct natures, in One Person, Jesus Christ The God-Man. 100% God in His Divine Nature, and 100% Man in His Human Nature, sin excepted! Jesus Christ is NOT "partly God", and "partly Man", where He is "missing" anything, but BOTH in their completeness, sin excepted.

Thirdly, you say, "Mathematically this makes sense. But Biblically I do not believe they can support the position". Here too you are very wrong!

The passage I have referred to many times, has been totally ignored, which I believe teaches exactly what I believe.

“Have this mind in you, which was also in Christ Jesus: who, being in the very Nature of God, counted it not a prize to be on an equality with God, but emptied Himself, taking the very Nature of a servant, being made in the likeness of men; and being found in fashion as a Man, he humbled Himself, becoming obedient [even] unto death, yea, the death of the cross" (Philippians 2:5-8)

Here we read of Jesus Christ as "BEING in the very Nature of God", which is from all eternity. The participle Greek “υπαρχων” is in the masculine singular, and present tense. Though the actual meaning here, is not in the "present", but "imperfect" tense, which is used for, "original and continued action". Examples of this use are clear in Acts 7:55; Acts 14:8; Galatians 2:4, etc. It speaks of Jesus Christ Who IS always in "the very Nature of God", and not as some heretically teach, that Jesus "laid aside His Divine Nature", and Walked this earth as a "mere man", Who had godly qualities! This also his blatant heresy.

I will also add here, that the Greek noun "“μορφὴ", used here twice, and translated in most versions as "form", does not mean as defined by the Unitarian J H Thayer in his Greek lexicon, “the form by which a person or thing strikes the vision; the external appearance”. Or that of Professor Danker does, “μορφὴ ϑεοῦ signifies a divine air/demeanor Phil 2:6, in contrast to μορφὴ δουλοῦ slavish demeanor vs. 7”. This is NOT what the Apostle Paul means! Rather, the meaning here, as in the other only place where this noun is used in the Greek New Testament, Mark 16:12 (εν ετερα μορφη), denotes the "essential nature"; or, as Mounce and the NIV, etc, have it, “very nature”.

Next we have, “οὐχ ἁρπαγμὸν ἡγήσατο”, = “considered it not a thing to be grasped”.

In the original sense, “ἁρπαγμὸν”, has the meaning of “the act of seizing”, hence the reading of Versions like the KJV, etc. However, the noun can also be used in a passive sense, rather than active, with the meaning, “to be grasped”, or “held on to”. This phrase, “οὐχ ἁρπαγμὸν ἡγήσατο”, must be taken with, “τὸ εἶναι ἴσα θεῷ”, which is translated, “to be equal with God”. “ἴσα” is in the neuter plural, and used as an adverb, with the meaning, “on equal terms, without advantage to either side”.

We then have, “ἀλλὰ ἑαυτὸν ἐκένωσεν μορφὴν δούλου λαβών”. literally, “but Himself emptied the very nature of a bond-servant having taken”. This “emptying” that Paul speaks of, is because Jesus Christ “took upon Himself”, the “very nature of a bond-servant”. The “emptying” has nothing to do with “μορφὴ ϑεοῦ”, which we have seen from, “υπαρχων”, is a continued existence. “ἐκένωσεν”, is from, “κενόω”, literally, “to empty”. The one Who does the “emptying”, is Jesus Christ “Himself”. What is “κενόω” used here for? There is a passage in the Greek writer, Herodotus, where he uses this verb, as “stripped” (see, LSJ, Greek lexicon). The meaning of “strip” here, as defined in Webster’s, “to divest of honors, privileges, or functions”. Clearly from this passage in Philippians 2, we read of Jesus Christ as “stripping Himself of the honor and privilege”, that He had with the Father from all eternity, by becoming the God-Man. As Weymouth’s New Testament rightly reads, “He stripped Himself of His glory”. God cannot cease to be God, and Jesus Christ, Who IS Almighty God, cannot for any time, not be God! “μορφὴν δούλου”, is in the same way “μορφὴ ϑεοῦ” is understood, as the “very nature” of a human, except sin. One Person, Jesus Christ, verse 5, Two “natures”, God and Man, at His Incarnation, verse 6-7.

Next, “εν ομοιωματι ανθρωπων γενομενος”, that is, “being born in the likeness of man”. What does Paul mean here, by “likeness”? This does not mean that the “human nature” of Jesus Christ, was unreal, and just a phantom, as some in the early Church taught. To understand what this means, we can look at another verse in Paul, Romans 8:3, “For what the law could not do, in that it was weak through the flesh, God, sending his own Son in the likeness of sinful flesh, and for sin, condemned sin in the flesh”. Same Greek word, “ὁμοίωμα”, (to resemble). The “human nature” of Jesus Christ, is very real, but, it is without any sin, which is not true of any human being ever born. In Matthew 1:16, we read, “Mary, of whom was born Jesus, who is called Christ”. The Greek is very important, “ἐξ ἧς”, literally, “out of HER”, feminine, singular, which shows that Mary was the biological “mother” of Jesus Christ, Who actually derived His “human nature” from her. This is also seen in Luke 1:35, “therefore also that Holy Child Who shall be born of thee (ἐκ σοῦ, singular, “out of you”) shall be called the Son of God”

In the Greek of Romans 2:3, Paul is very careful in how he writes. He says, “κατεκρινε την αμαρτιαν εν τη σαρκ”, “condemned sin in the flesh”. Had he written, “κατεκρινε την αμαρτιαν την εν τη σαρκ”, this would have made sin in the flesh of Jesus Christ. It is clear from both these passages taken together, what Paul does mean when he says, “in the likeness of man”.

“And being found in fashion as a man”, Weymouth translates, “And being recognized as truly human”. “σχῆμα”, here translated as “fashion”, is more than just the “outward appearance”. It also is used for, “character, characteristic propetry”, that which makes a “real human”. When those who lived with Jesus looked at Him, they “saw” a real human being like themselves. But, in His One Person, He was the God-Man, 100% God and 100% Man, except for sin.

Then we have Jesus’ “submission” to God the Father, “He humbled Himself by becoming obedient to the point of death, even death on a cross”. This “obedience”, is “μέχρῐ”, “till the end of His life”, “as long as”. At which point in time, that “submission” to the Father was ended. This is what the passage in Hebrew 2:9 says, that it was for “a little while”, that Jesus was “made lower than the angels”, for the duration of His Incarnate Life on earth.

This is my beliefs, which is what the Bible, as I have shown, clearly teaches. I am very open to be shown to be in error, but only from the 66 Books of the Inspired, Infallible, Word of Almighty God, The Holy Bible.

You make very serious errors here.

First, I did not quote from a Penal Substitution source.

I quoted from the Council of Chalcedon.

They held Ransom Theory, NOT Penal Substitution Theory.

Second, tge passages you quote do not say what you believe. I realize you think the Bible teaches what you believe.

I believe the Bible teaches what it states (what is written in the Biblical text).

 

[JonC]

I knew what was coming after I read the headlines

it’s amazing that he denies 2000 yrs of Xian history on so many points

Interesting is the term that I will use

It is interesting. @SavedByGrace most likely does not understand the words used, so his view is oribably more nonsence than rejection.

He rejects the idea of Jesus being represented by two natures, indivisible and without mixture, but one substance and one person.

I think his problem is that he can't get over the "union" part of the Christian definition. Do he has Jesus with a 100% human second nature added to a 100% divine nature (50% God, 50% man) instead of Jesus represented by 2 natures, indivisable and without mixture - one substance and one person.


I blame a lack of theory in our churches for his error. We rightly want to stick with Scripture, but at the same time we need to guard against heresies that have occurred in the past.

@SavedByGrace rejects orthodox Christianity, on this point, because he rightly wants to stick with Scripture but has wrongly adopted a philosophical position that was declared a heresy many centuries ago (and this clouds his judgment of Scripture).


To prevent this churches HAVE TO GET BACK TO TEACHING THEOLOGY. We need churches that will dive into God's Word and address these heresies along the way - not feel-good anything goes superficial teaching.

 

[37818]

. . . begotten of the Father before the ages, . . .

This is fundamental denial of being YHWH.


There are at least three views of theTrinity. Two of those views deny the above . . . begotten . . . heresy.

 

[SavedByGrace]

This is fundamental denial of being YHWH.


There are at least three views of theTrinity. Two of those views deny the above . . . begotten . . . heresy.

Indeed! Interesting that Jon who cannot grasp the 2 Natures in One Person Jesus Christ, 100% God from eternity, and 100% Human, from His Conception in the Virgin Mary, sin excepted. Then he tries to accuse others of "heresy"!

I have shown in #2 from the Bible, on the Person of Jesus Christ, and till now Jon has failed to show where I am in error, from the Bible!

It is much better to simply admit that he does not understand what the Bible says on the Person of Jesus Christ, than to post complete nonsense, that includes RANK HERESY, that is actually BLASPHEMY, and AGREE with it!!!

 

[JonC]

I will be wasting my time trying to show that you are WRONG, as you are also on Penal Substitution!

Just smoke.

You have not proven orthodox Christianity wrong, by Scripture. And you can't. So you resort to playground tactics.

When a person states that Christianity had it wrong for 2,000 years (as you did) it is on that person to prove the orthodox faith wrong.

 

[37818]

Hypostasis is the Greek word for "substance"

5x in the New Testament.

2 Corinthians 9:4, Lest haply if they of Macedonia come with me, and find you unprepared, we (that we say not, ye) should be ashamed in this same confident boasting. . . . υποστασει . . .

2 Corinthians 11:17, That which I speak, I speak it not after the Lord, but as it were foolishly, in this confidence of boasting. . . . υποστασει . . .

Hebrews 1:3, Who being the brightness of his glory, and the express image of his person, and upholding all things by the word of his power, when he had by himself purged our sins, sat down on the right hand of the Majesty on high; . . . υποστασεως . . .

Hebrews 3:14, For we are made partakers of Christ, if we hold the beginning of our confidence stedfast unto the end; . . . υποστασεως . . .

Hebrews 11:1, Now faith is the substance of things hoped for, the evidence of things not seen. . . . υποστασις . . .

 

[SavedByGrace]

Just smoke.

You have not proven orthodox Christianity wrong, by Scripture. And you can't. So you resort to playground tactics.

When a person states that Christianity had it wrong for 2,000 years (as you did) it is on that person to prove the orthodox faith wrong.

Jon, YOU started this thread. I have responded in great detail FROM THE BIBLE, in #2. You have FAILED to show that what I have written is not Biblical!

I challenge you to do so on here.

 

[JonC]

This is fundamental denial of being YHWH.


There are at least three views of theTrinity. Two of those views deny the above . . . begotten . . . heresy.

I agree.

My main issue here, however, is with those who denounce the "union" of two natures and claim that Jesus was 50% God and 50% man.

I get that my view Jesus is 100% God, 100% man does not make sence mathematically. But it is what I believe and it is orthodox Christianity.

Centuries ago Christians went to great lengths to prevent the heresy that seems to be creeping into our congregations regarding the nature of Christ.

So people, like SavedbyGrace, look at my belief and claim it is nonsense, Jesus can't be 100%God/100% man.

I simply hate to see this decline.

This was doctrine worked out and held for over 2,000 years by every Christian denomination. Now it is being torn apart out of neglect.

It is legitimately sad.

But we only have ourselves and a decline in discipleship to blame. We worked hard in evangelism, which is good, but we neglected to teach and disciple those added to the church. And we ended up with heresy in the church for our neglect- men like SavedByGrace and Marooncat79 abandoning sound Christian doctrine for heresies those doctrines were developed to prevent.

 

[Marooncat79]

When examining claims it is not up to me to prove or disprove your ideas.

You have not proved that Jesus has two seperate natures, one God and one man, via Scripture. You just posted passages about Jesus and told us you reject the orthodox view.

And you can't go to the Bible to prove your view. That is why the idea has been considered a heresy for over 1,000 years. Ultimately it makes Jesus less fully God and less fully man.

I agree with @Marooncat79 . I just find it interesting that this type of heresy has resurfaced.

@JonC no we do not agree. At all

 

[JonC]

@JonC no we do not agree. At all

About what?

I thought you said that you thought it interesting Saved was denying the doctrine of the hypostatic union.

His view certainly is old, but it was declared heresy and outside of Christian doctrine 2,000 years ago.

The Hypostatic (substantive reality) Union speaks to the union of two natures. Jesus is revealed in 2 natures, fully man and fully God. But these natures are not mixed and are inseparable. 100% God/100% man, not a a 100% human nature alongside a 100% divine nature (50% God, 50% man as "person".

If you, like SavedbyGrace, reject this doctrine and instead hold that Jesus was 100% God and added 100% man as a second nature then you are going against 2,000 years of Christian fairh.



It is sad that you guys dismiss two millenia of Christianity so quick. And this is Christian doctrine held for so long by all Christians regardless of denominational differences.

 

[tyndale1946]

Anything we do is done because of our nature. If a person watches porn (not an attribute) he uses his ability to see (an attribute) and does so because he is lustful (nature).

Look, this is basic English. It isn't even strictly related to theology.


Use the definition you provided for "attribute" and your source provided for "nature" and you'll see the difference.

Psalms 51:5 Behold, I was shapen in iniquity; and in sin did my mother conceive me.

Before we are quickened by God's Holy Spirit alone, that's how we stay!

Ephesians 2:1 And you hath he quickened, who were dead in trespasses and sins;

2 Wherein in time past ye walked according to the course of this world, according to the prince of the power of the air, the spirit that now worketh in the children of disobedience:

3 Among whom also we all had our conversation in times past in the lusts of our flesh, fulfilling the desires of the flesh and of the mind; and were by nature the children of wrath, even as others.

Brother Glen

 

[JonC]

Psalms 51:5 Behold, I was shapen in iniquity; and in sin did my mother conceive me.

Before we are quickened by God's Holy Spirit alone, that's how we stay!

Ephesians 2:1 And you hath he quickened, who were dead in trespasses and sins;

2 Wherein in time past ye walked according to the course of this world, according to the prince of the power of the air, the spirit that now worketh in the children of disobedience:

3 Among whom also we all had our conversation in times past in the lusts of our flesh, fulfilling the desires of the flesh and of the mind; and were by nature the children of wrath, even as others.

Brother Glen

Yep.

I've heard it put this way - "sins are manifestations of a sinful nature".

 

[JonC]

To get this thread back on track, the question was:

Are we to think of Jesus as "revealed in two natures without confusion, without change, without division, without separation; 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"

or, as @SavedByGrace suggests,

As having had a 100% God nature to which was added alongside a 100% human nature?

The primary differences here are whether the union of natures, without division or separation, exists (100%God/100% man) or if these natures are seperate (50% God/ 50% man with a fully God nature and a fully man nature).

This may seem minor to us, but it really is not. For 2,000 years we benefitted from the earlier Christians working through this in order to combat heresies.

 

[tyndale1946]

To get this thread back on track, the question was:

Are we to think of Jesus as "revealed in two natures without confusion, without change, without division, without separation; 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"

or, as @SavedByGrace suggests,

As having had a 100% God nature to which was added alongside a 100% human nature?

The primary differences here are whether the union of natures, without division or separation, exists (100%God/100% man) or if these natures are seperate (50% God/ 50% man with a fully God nature and a fully man nature).

This may seem minor to us, but it really is not. For 2,000 years we benefitted from the earlier Christians working through this in order to combat heresies.

In voting I answered the first but I pose this question, if question 2 is true how are all our sins forgiven if laid on a 50% man?... Brother Glen

 

[JonC]

In voting I answered the first but I pose this question, if question 2 is true how are all our sins forgiven if laid on a 50% man?... Brother Glen

And what about salvation by a 50% God.

I understand why people think this. We can't reconcile God becoming flesh, God being made as one of us.....so the easiest solution is to remove Christ's divinity or humanity when it is convenient.

When Christians fought against these heresies they settled on #1 in the poll. BUT they did not try to figure out how it worked. They simply left it to a mystery beyond our understanding and accepted Scripture.

Jesus is God. Jesus is man. Jesus died for our sins. How this can be isn't even an issue. We should simply be grateful that is how it is.


I blame a lack of doctrine in our churches for this issue creeping up again.

 

[tyndale1946]

And what about salvation by a 50% God.

I understand why people think this. We can't reconcile God becoming flesh, God being made as one of us.....so the easiest solution is to remove Christ's divinity or humanity when it is convenient.

When Christians fought against these heresies they settled on #1 in the poll. BUT they did not try to figure out how it worked. They simply left it to a mystery beyond our understanding and accepted Scripture.

Jesus is God. Jesus is man. Jesus died for our sins. How this can be isn't even an issue. We should simply be grateful that is how it is.


I blame a lack of doctrine in our churches for this issue creeping up again.

2 Corinthians 5:21 For he hath made him to be sin for us, who knew no sin; that we might be made the righteousness of God in him.

He is 100% God and 100% sinless man but on the cross when our sins were laid upon him he became us as our representative and took the full wrath of God, his Father... That's my understanding... Brother Glen

Isaiah 53:6 All we like sheep have gone astray; we have turned every one to his own way; and the LORD hath laid on him the iniquity of us all.

 

[Baptizo]

Mathematically this makes sence. But Biblically I do not believe they can support the position.

I decided early on in my walk to accept what the Bible says on faith and not worry too much about it. Math, science, ect in the physical world reveal to us how God's creation operates within the laws of nature. I don't think a percentage can be placed on His divine nature.