The Nature of Christ

[Yeshua1]

Yes. I do. I believe these "two-natures" are distinct but inseparable.

that he is "just" God in a human body, correct?

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"?

Jesus has both natures of God and Human, sinless humanity, and the two natures do not mix, co mingle together, so he is both Gad and Human, but Jesus did not bounce back and forth in His natures, so as a man did face real hunger and pain, but as God could walk on water and do miracles...

 

[Reformed]

Interesting how this thread is touching on another important aspect of Christ, namely, the eternal generation of the Son. The Son has always been the Son. There has never been a time when the Son was not the Son. There also seems to be a misunderstanding about what it means for the Son to be begotten and not made.

 

[JonC]

Jesus has both natures of God and Human, sinless humanity, and the two natures do not mix, co mingle together, so he is both Gad and Human, but Jesus did not bounce back and forth in His natures, so as a man did face real hunger and pain, but as God could walk on water and do miracles...

Please help me out. You say that you do not believe that God "bounced back and forth in His natures - but then you say that he experienced hunger and pain as man while walking on water and doing miracles as God. That certainly seems to be bouncing between two natures.

The difference, I believe, between your view and mine is in the word "inseparable". We both see two distinct "natures" (God and man) which are not mixed (they are not a hybrid third nature). But you rejected "inseparable" for "separate" (what both the Creed and the majority of Orthodox Christian theologies deny.

So you see Jesus as walking on water as doing so through His Divine nature. And you see Jesus as experiencing hunger and pain through His human nature. This is "distinct and separate" natures.

I see Jesus as walking on water and becoming hungry as Immanuel. This is not done or experienced through either nature as we do things and experience things in our person - not our nature. So Jesus walking on water is an illumination of His divine nature. And Jesus growing hungry is an illumination of His human nature. God-man. Not God + man. Distinct and inseparable. Not distinct and separate.

 

[JonC]

Interesting how this thread is touching on another important aspect of Christ, namely, the eternal generation of the Son. The Son has always been the Son. There has never been a time when the Son was not the Son. There also seems to be a misunderstanding about what it means for the Son to be begotten and not made.

I agree (on both points). And I think that topic deserves a thread of its own (as does the nature of original sin).

I think that the term "begotten" would be evident in John's use of Logos (it is certainly implied).

 

[37818]

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

And that confession is not according to the word of God, in that case. Since that teaching is false.

Neither the Son of God nor the Father are caused. "Begotten" is a cause, and what is caused is never God.

 

[37818]

I think that the term "begotten" would be evident in John's use of Logos (it is certainly implied).

What is caused is never God.

 

[JonC]

What is caused is never God.

I agree. That does not mean the Logos was caused (even though the term implies a going forth). It also does not mean the Logos is not eternally begotten (the language seems to imply He is).

The assumption otherwise implies a stagnant God who would have been be nothing but uncaused potential. I do not find this a biblical presentation (that said, we are venturing into what cannot be known).

 

[37818]

I agree. That does not mean the Logos was caused (even though the term implies a going forth). It also does not mean the Logos is not eternally begotten (the language seems to imply He is).

The assumption otherwise implies a stagnant God who would have been be nothing but uncaused potential. I do not find this a biblical presentation (that said, we are venturing into what cannot be known).

The Logos is God's sole agent of cause (John 1:3; Colossians 1:16-17; Hebrews 1:2-3; John 1:18). Which means the Logos with God are both uncaused.

 

[JonC]

The Logos is God's sole agent of cause (John 1:3; Colossians 1:16-17; Hebrews 1:2-3; John 1:18). Which means the Logos with God are both uncaused.

I agree.

 

[Reformed]

The eternal generation of the Son removes cause as an obstacle because the Son has always existed. The council of Nicea took care to eliminate even a hint of causation when describing the Son:

"And in one Lord Jesus Christ, the only-begotten Son of God, begotten of the Father before all worlds; God of God, Light of Light, very God of very God; begotten, not made, being of one substance with the Father, by whom all things were made." (emphasis mine)

The debate about "begotten" stems from the Greek term monogenes. Modern scholarship has tried to change how this term is interpreted. It ignores historical context and the flexibility of the term as it operates within different contexts.

 

[Martin Marprelate]

I am unable to vote because the categories are self-contradictory

 

[JonC]

I am unable to vote because the categories are self-contradictory

Welcome to American politics.

And Merry Christmas.

 

[Reformed]

I am unable to vote because the categories are self-contradictory

I have commented on this thread, but I also refrained from voting.

 

[JonC]

I have commented on this thread, but I also refrained from voting.

It is difficult (probably impossible) to try and sum up the issue of natures with one statement. I suspect that is why so much went into the creeds (not just as a statement but also how they worked out the philosophy of “nature” and “persons”). I believe the third correct (Jesus being True God and True man - the union of God and man, two natures, distinct yet inseparable).

Here is what I believe (for what it's worth):

There is One God. This One God is in three distinct Persons (the Father, Son, and Spirit). The Son is given to man to know God and no one comes to know God (or the Father) except by the Son who is an exact representation of the Father and declares God to mankind as all the fulness of God dwells in Him bodily.

The Son is one Person of the Trinity. He is one in person (He does not act or experience things in a duality of personalities (e.g., Jesus does not do one thing in divine nature and yet another in His human nature).

The Son is the Logos. He is eternally begotten of God. He was not made but is eternally proceeding from the Father, of the same essence as is the Father. The Son, eternally begotten, was made flesh at a point in time.

Christ is acknowledged in two natures. These natures are distinct, unchangeable, indivisible, and inseparable. These two natures are evidenced in the work of Christ (that Jesus is God is demonstrated in the winds obeying His command; that He is human is evidenced in His growing tired, hungry, and suffering).

The distinction of the two natures do not take away from their union in the Person of Christ. Each nature is preserved and concurring in Christ. Calming the sea illuminates Christ’s divinity, but is not accomplished in such a way as to exclude His humanity. Growing weary points to Christ’s humanity, but is not experienced in such a way as to exclude His divinity. The two-natures are distinct but not separate. They are inseparable.

 

[37818]

The Son is the Logos. He is eternally begotten of God.

The term "begotten" is not Biblical to the Logos being uncaused, period.

 

[JonC]

The term "begotten" is not Biblical to the Logos being uncaused, period.

I am unaware of any use (even as "reason") of "logos" that would not also support the idea of "begotten".

Why do you believe that the term "begotten" not to be Biblcial to the Logos?

So as not to change the topic:

Eternally Begotten of the Father....or not.

 

[37818]

I am unaware of any use (even as "reason") of "logos" that would not also support the idea of "begotten".

Why do you believe that the term "begotten" not to be Biblcial to the Logos?

So as not to change the topic:

Eternally Begotten of the Father....or not.

Three fundamental reasons.
1) The term denotes cause.
2) It is never use Biblically to refer to the "Logos."
3) The term is explicitly used in the prophecy of Him being the Son resurrected from the dead. Psalms 2:7; Acts 13:33.

 

[Yeshua1]

Please help me out. You say that you do not believe that God "bounced back and forth in His natures - but then you say that he experienced hunger and pain as man while walking on water and doing miracles as God. That certainly seems to be bouncing between two natures.

The difference, I believe, between your view and mine is in the word "inseparable". We both see two distinct "natures" (God and man) which are not mixed (they are not a hybrid third nature). But you rejected "inseparable" for "separate" (what both the Creed and the majority of Orthodox Christian theologies deny.

So you see Jesus as walking on water as doing so through His Divine nature. And you see Jesus as experiencing hunger and pain through His human nature. This is "distinct and separate" natures.

I see Jesus as walking on water and becoming hungry as Immanuel. This is not done or experienced through either nature as we do things and experience things in our person - not our nature. So Jesus walking on water is an illumination of His divine nature. And Jesus growing hungry is an illumination of His human nature. God-man. Not God + man. Distinct and inseparable. Not distinct and separate.

 

[Yeshua1]

I see Jesus as having both natures of God and man at same time, forever, and he can get hungry and feel pain die to his Humanity, and can do miracles and overcome the grave due to being God also.

 

[JonC]

Three fundamental reasons.
1) The term denotes cause.
2) It is never use Biblically to refer to the "Logos."
3) The term is explicitly used in the prophecy of Him being the Son resurrected from the dead. Psalms 2:7; Acts 13:33.

Thank you for the reply.

I think we are using the word differently. I may, in fact, be misusing the word.