The Nature of Christ

[JonC]

On another thread (on the Baptist only section) there is a discussion regarding the nature of Christ.

I believe that all here would agree that Jesus is God Incarnate (God become flesh). I can see three options:

Jesus is part God and part man (God/man)
Jesus is God as if he is not man, man as if he is not God (God + man)
Jesus is no less God than God, no more man than man (God-man)

Some on the Baptist section argue Jesus' nature is God + man (God as if he is not man, and man as if he is not God).

I believe the third option correct (God is no less God than God - God of very God and God is no more man than man, in every human way made like us, yet without sin). It simply seems to me that Scripture never speaks of Jesus as if He were not God, and also never as if He were not man. I do not understand why we should either. He is God-man, God with us, Immanuel, the Word made flesh. We cannot leave out either Christ's divinity or His humanity (they are inseparable).

 

[37818]

My choice is not there. He is both fully man and fully God. He is not less God because He is man and He is not more than being fully a man by being actually God. The man is not God and God is not man.

 

[JonC]

My choice is not there. He is both fully man and fully God. He is not less God because He is man and He is not more than being fully a man by being actually God. The man is not God and God is not man.

That is the 3rd option - the Chalcedonian Creed:

" begotten before all ages according to the Godhead, and in these latter days, for us and for our salvation, born of the Virgin Mary, the Mother of God, 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 Son, and only begotten, God the Word, the Lord Jesus Christ"

Jesus is One Person with two natures (human and divine), no less God than God, no more man than man.

The idea is Christ is truly God and truly man.

 

[Reformed]

I learned a long time ago never to assume anything; that includes assuming that all professing Christians are in agreement with Chalcedon and Nicea on the nature of Christ. The ancient Arian heresy is the root of every error about the nature of Christ and its deadly poison still infects people today.

 

[37818]

That is the 3rd option - the Chalcedonian Creed:

" begotten before all ages according to the Godhead, . . .

That is without valid Biblical basis. The Son of God was not begotten nor made before all ages. He is the sole cause of all things before all ages (John 1:3).

 

[JonC]

That is without valid Biblical basis. The Son of God was not begotten nor made before all ages. He is the sole cause of all things before all ages (John 1:3).

You may disagree with the teaching but it is not without biblical basis. For one, it may be viewed as implied in the word Logos. It may also be implied in the truth He is the Lamb slain before the foundation of the world.

Regardless, the Creed is not speaking of Jesus as having a human nature before the Incarnation (which is the topic).

So in what way do you disagree with the statement Jesus is no less God than God and no more man than man?

 

[37818]

You may disagree with the teaching but it is not without biblical basis. For one, it may be viewed as implied in the word Logos. It may also be implied in the truth He is the Lamb slain before the foundation of the world.

Regardless, the Creed is not speaking of Jesus as having a human nature before the Incarnation (which is the topic).

So in what way do you disagree with the statement Jesus is no less God than God and no more man than man?

We disagree on "the Lamb slain before the foundation of the world." There is no such Biblical teaching found in the word of God. Note: Hebrews 9:26 stands against that false teaching.

I said I believed, "He is not less God because He is man and He is not more than being fully a man by being actually God."

How do you understand that be be a denial of the person who is "Jesus is no less God than God and no more man than man?"

My position is that the preincarnate Logos as the Son was not caused to be the Son. The Logos Himself is the cause of all that God causes (John 1:3) being He if fully God and "with God" being the Son.

 

[JonC]

We disagree on "the Lamb slain before the foundation of the world." There is no such Biblical teaching found in the word of God. Note: Hebrews 9:26 stands against that false teaching.

I said I believed, "He is not less God because He is man and He is not more than being fully a man by being actually God."

How do you understand that be be a denial of the person who is "Jesus is no less God than God and no more man than man?"

My position is that the preincarnate Logos as the Son was not caused to be the Son. The Logos Himself is the cause of all that God causes (John 1:3) being He if fully God and "with God" being the Son.

How do you reconcile

Hebrews 9:26
Otherwise, He would have needed to suffer often since the foundation of the world; but now once at the consummation of the ages He has been manifested to put away sin by x the sacrifice of Himself.

With Christ being the Lamb slain FROM the foundation of the world?


Edit - and to clarify, I am comfortable with "from" the foundation. My point is simply that the Logos was and is always the Logos (which implies a going forth from).

 

[JonC]

I said I believed, "He is not less God because He is man and He is not more than being fully a man by being actually God."

How do you understand that be be a denial of the person who is "Jesus is no less God than God and no more man than man?"

Sorry. I did not mean to ignore your question.

I understood your rejection of "Jesus is no less God than God, no more man than man " in your first post as representative of your view to be a rejection of the idea Jesus is no less God than God and no more man than man.

 

[37818]

How do you reconcile

Hebrews 9:26
Otherwise, He would have needed to suffer often since the foundation of the world; but now once at the consummation of the ages He has been manifested to put away sin by x the sacrifice of Himself.

With Christ being the Lamb slain FROM the foundation of the world?


Edit - and to clarify, I am comfortable with "from" the foundation. My point is simply that the Logos was and is always the Logos (which implies a going forth from).

It is my understanding that the "foundation of the world" referring to the creation of man. (John 3:16. 1 John 2:15-17. John 17:14.)
There is what is before the foundation of the world, Titus 1:2; John 17:24; Ephesians 1:4; 1 Peter 1:20.
Christ being the Lamb of God occurs from/since the foundation of the world (Hebrews 9:26 again).

The Logos always was and is the sole cause (John 1:3).

 

[37818]

Sorry. I did not mean to ignore your question.

I understood your rejection of "Jesus is no less God than God, no more man than man " in your first post as representative of your view to be a rejection of the idea Jesus is no less God than God and no more man than man.

So how do you understand my view?

Man is not God. God is not man. In the incarnation Jesus is both the man and God.

In 1 Corinthians 8:6 does not refer to Him as God.

Jesus in John 20:17 does not refer to Himself as God.

As our mediator 1 Timothy 2:5, He is referred to as the man not as God.

None of those references change the fact He is also God. They present Him as a man in contrast to God.

What changed in the incarnation is how He was "with God" not that He "was God." John 1:9-10. Hebrews 1:2-3.

 

[JonC]

So how do you understand my view?

Man is not God. God is not man. In the incarnation Jesus is both the man and God.

In 1 Corinthians 8:6 does not refer to Him as God.

Jesus in John 20:17 does not refer to Himself as God.

As our mediator 1 Timothy 2:5, He is referred to as the man not as God.

None of those references change the fact He is also God. They present Him as a man in contrast to God.

What changed in the incarnation is how He was "with God" not that He "was God." John 1:9-10. Hebrews 1:2-3.

I am not exactly sure now.

I believe Jesus is God and man. I believe there are two natures that cannot me mixed (a hybrid nature that would be less than God and more than man) or separated (they are united in the Person of Christ).

So I can say that Jesus' divinity is on display when He calms the sea. I can say we see His humanity in His suffering. But I do not believe Jesus experiences or acts utalizing two natures separately (which would redefine "nature" as "person" or "personality").

When Jesus calmed the sea I believe He did so as Immanuel, as the Word become flesh. When Christ suffered on the cross I believe He did so as Immanuel, as the Word become flesh.

 

[Yeshua1]

On another thread (on the Baptist only section) there is a discussion regarding the nature of Christ.

I believe that all here would agree that Jesus is God Incarnate (God become flesh). I can see three options:

Jesus is part God and part man (God/man)
Jesus is God as if he is not man, man as if he is not God (God + man)
Jesus is no less God than God, no more man than man (God-man)

Some on the Baptist section argue Jesus' nature is God + man (God as if he is not man, and man as if he is not God).

I believe the third option correct (God is no less God than God - God of very God and God is no more man than man, in every human way made like us, yet without sin). It simply seems to me that Scripture never speaks of Jesus as if He were not God, and also never as if He were not man. I do not understand why we should either. He is God-man, God with us, Immanuel, the Word made flesh. We cannot leave out either Christ's divinity or His humanity (they are inseparable).

Jesus has BOTH the natures of God and of man residing in Him!

 

[Yeshua1]

That is without valid Biblical basis. The Son of God was not begotten nor made before all ages. He is the sole cause of all things before all ages (John 1:3).

He is eternally begotten of The Father!

 

[Yeshua1]

I learned a long time ago never to assume anything; that includes assuming that all professing Christians are in agreement with Chalcedon and Nicea on the nature of Christ. The ancient Arian heresy is the root of every error about the nature of Christ and its deadly poison still infects people today.

So many think that they are Biblical in the nature and persons of God, but actually are supporting something akin to either Oneness or Modulaism!

 

[37818]

He is eternally begotten of The Father!

The word of God teaches no such thing.

 

[JonC]

Jesus has BOTH the natures of God and of man residing in Him!

Well yes...of course. I have not seen anyone denying that truth. It seems you are striking at windmills, Don Quixote.

Which of the above choices best reflects your understanding (or do you hold an entirely different perspective)?

 

[Yeshua1]

Well yes...of course. I have not seen anyone denying that truth. It seems you are striking at windmills, Don Quixote.

Which of the above choices best reflects your understanding (or do you hold an entirely different perspective)?

You deny that Jesus was has his own separate Humanity, that he is "just" God in a human body, correct?

 

[Yeshua1]

The word of God teaches no such thing.

“The Son is eternally begotten of the Father”eternally
1689 Confession agrees also!

 

[JonC]

You deny that Jesus was has his own separate Humanity

Yes. I do. I believe these "two-natures" are distinct but inseparable. QUOTE="Yeshua1, post: 2470255, member: 11334"]that he is "just" God in a human body, correct?[/QUOTE]No, I don't.

I have affirmed that I believe the Chalcedonian Creed acceptable (two natures- distinct but inseparable). I said Jesus is no less God than God, no more man than man. FYI - most Christians affirm the Creed's definition.

Can you point me to a post where I claim Jesus is "just God in a human body"?

Can you justify your departure from the "orthodox position" of the Chalcedonian Creed by changing "distinct and inseparable" to "distinct and separate"?