What the sin nature is not.

[JonC]

Jesus since His incarnation has two natures. He is now both truly and fully a man and was always also truly and fully God, being always the Son of God being one Person distinct from the Person of the Father and Person of the Holy Spirit. They were always the one LORD God.

The hypostatic union of two natures. 100% God, 100% man, inseparable and without mixture (not more than man or less than God).

My argument was saying that Jesus has a human and a divine nature. That is not correct. That is why we use God/man.

The Word actually became flesh. He did not add flesh but became flesh (inseparable).

@SavedByGrace jumped the gun and attacked with the "heresy" charge without taking the time to check out what I was saying.

Jesus has one nature, which a union of two natures (hypostatic union), without mixture and inseparable. This means Jesus does not decide which nature to use today and which to use tomorrow.

 

[SavedByGrace]

The hypostatic union of two natures. 100% God, 100% man, inseparable and without mixture (not more than man or less than God).

My argument was saying that Jesus has a human and a divine nature. That is not correct. That is why we use God/man.

The Word actually became flesh. He did not add flesh but became flesh (inseparable).

@SavedByGrace jumped the gun and attacked with the "heresy" charge without taking the time to check out what I was saying.

Jesus has one nature, which a union of two natures (hypostatic union), without mixture and inseparable. This means Jesus does not decide which nature to use today and which to use tomorrow.

You have said that you know Greek. John 1.14 says that the Word BECAME flesh, that is something was ADDED.

The Word did not CHANGE into flesh!,

In 1 Timothy 3.16 Paul says God was manifested in as a human, where Jesus Christ became Incarnate

This is clearly taught in Philippians 2:5-8

 

[SavedByGrace]

Not God and Man (100% God plus 100%man added as a second nature).

This is EXACTLY what the Bible actually teaches!

 

[37818]

The hypostatic union of two natures. 100% God, 100% man, inseparable and without mixture (not more than man or less than God).

My argument was saying that Jesus has a human and a divine nature. That is not correct. That is why we use God/man.

The Word actually became flesh. He did not add flesh but became flesh (inseparable).

@SavedByGrace jumped the gun and attacked with the "heresy" charge without taking the time to check out what I was saying.

Jesus has one nature, which a union of two natures (hypostatic union), without mixture and inseparable. This means Jesus does not decide which nature to use today and which to use tomorrow.

He didn't become the Son, He always was the Son, being the LORD God. Genesis 3:22. Colossians 1:16-17.

John 1:18.

 

[SavedByGrace]

The hypostatic union of two natures. 100% God, 100% man, inseparable and without mixture (not more than man or less than God).

My argument was saying that Jesus has a human and a divine nature. That is not correct. That is why we use God/man.

The Word actually became flesh. He did not add flesh but became flesh (inseparable).

@SavedByGrace jumped the gun and attacked with the "heresy" charge without taking the time to check out what I was saying.

Jesus has one nature, which a union of two natures (hypostatic union), without mixture and inseparable. This means Jesus does not decide which nature to use today and which to use tomorrow.

Jon I suggest you read Philippians 2:5-8 in the Greek with the grammar and then say what Paul means

 

[JonC]

You have said that you know Greek. John 1.14 says that the Word BECAME flesh, that is something was ADDED.

The Word did not CHANGE into flesh!,

In 1 Timothy 3.16 Paul says God was manifested in as a human, where Jesus Christ became Incarnate

This is clearly taught in Philippians 2:5-8

I said that I believe the Word actually became flesh. I did not provide a passage.

You reject "the Word became flesh", "came in the form of man", "revealed in the flesh", "shared in flesh and blood", "was made like is in all ways", that Jesus "came in the flesh".

OK, that's fine.

How do you translate γίνομαι (became) in John 1:14?

 

[37818]

1 Timothy 2:5-6, For there is one God, and one mediator between God and men, the man Christ Jesus; Who gave himself a ransom for all, . . .

 

[SavedByGrace]

You reject "the Word became flesh", "came in the form of man", "revealed in the flesh", "shared in flesh and blood", "was made like is in all ways", that Jesus "came in the flesh"

Really? Show where!!!

 

[JonC]

You have said that you know Greek. John 1.14 says that the Word BECAME flesh, that is something was ADDED.

The Word did not CHANGE into flesh!,

In 1 Timothy 3.16 Paul says God was manifested in as a human, where Jesus Christ became Incarnate

This is clearly taught in Philippians 2:5-8

So you woukd simply remove γίνομαι from the Bible (and, I take it, other passages that speak of the Son being made flesh)?

Incarnate means "in human form" or "flesh".


Let's summarize your belief:

1. The hypostatic union is a heresy, Jesus has two natures (not 2 natures united)....this was the first claim you made when you called the hypostatic union a heresy.

2. The Word did not become flesh.

3. Jesus was just a divine manifestation, appearing to be flesh, but never actually "made like us in every way"

4. God was wrong to use γίνομαι in John 1:14.


Like I said, what word would you replace γίνομαι with??.??

 

[JonC]

He didn't become the Son, He always was the Son, being the LORD God. Genesis 3:22. Colossians 1:16-17.

John 1:18.

Exactly. BUT He was not always man.

My argument against @SavedByGrace is that I believe:

1. The two natures (God and man) are united, without mixture and inseparable, in Jesus (the hypostatic union).

2. The Word became flesh, He was made like us in every way (but without sin).

@SavedByGrace called the hypostatic union a heresy. He also stated that the Word did not become flesh.

He agrees that God was manifested in Jesus, so while extradionarly unorthodox, I'm not sure if his beliefs rise to the level of a banable heresy. Not sure if he is trinitarian.

 

[JonC]

Really? Show where!!!

John 1.14 says that the Word BECAME flesh, that is something was ADDED.

You (and I take it @37818 ) believe "the Word became flesh" was an unbiblical addition to Scripture.

I asked how you would translate γίνομαι. You still have not answered.


You stated that a human nature was added to Christ's divine nature, that my view of two natures united without mixture and individual (hypostatic union, Phillipians 2:5-11) is a heresy.

I think @37818 agrees with you, so this is open to him as well.

You are playing with terms.

Calling the hypostatic union a heresy is a departure from orthodox Christianity. Viewing John 1:14 to mean "and the flesh was added to the Word" is a heresy. Viewing Jesus as having two separable natures (one human added to one divine) is a heresy.

Own it. Call it what it is. You reject the orthodox Christianity when it comes to the hypostatic union. Argue your points. But stop calling others heretics for disagreeing with you while holding a position that is actually a form of heresy.


Do you view yourself as resurrecting an old faith (a neo form of Apollinarianism or Nestorianism) or that you have discovered a new interpretation?

 

[JonC]

He didn't become the Son, He always was the Son, being the LORD God. Genesis 3:22. Colossians 1:16-17.

John 1:18.

Yes, He is always the Son. I agree.

My disagreement with you too is I reject taking "the Word became flesh" as an addition to Scripture and I believe that in Jesus divine nature and human nature is united, without mixture and inseparable (I believe the orthodox Christian position of the hypostatic union is correct).

You two reject orthodox Christianity and instead view the flesh as being added to the Son, not united into God-man and you two believe that the Word did not become flesh (you believe that was added to Scripture....based on your approval of that claim).

 

[37818]

"the Word became flesh" was an unbiblical addition to Scripture.

No. John 1:14 was His own doing per the fact of John 1:2-3. He changed how He was with God, John 1:1-2, John 1:14 per John 1:3. Per John 1:3 He being the sole agent of change on behalf of the Father per Ephesians 3:9. Colossians 1:16-17.

 

[37818]

My disagreement with you too is I reject taking "the Word became flesh" as an addition to Scripture . . .

There is absolutely no bases for you to suppose this.
John 1:14 per John 1:3.
None.

 

[37818]

You have said that you know Greek. John 1.14 says that the Word BECAME flesh, that is something was ADDED.

What? Where are you getting this?

 

[JD731]

You said that my belief that Jesus did not have two natures (a schizophrenic embodiment) or an amalgamation of natures, that He is fully God and fully man, was a heresy that should disqualified me from being a moderator.

No passage that you have posted contradicts what I posted about my position. If you believe otherwise you are foolishly illiterate.


Personally, I thought we agreed on this issue until you declared orthodox Christianity heresy.

So my response is based on both what you stated you believe (two natures) and what you called "heresy" (hypostatic union).

Do you mind explaining your theology of the cross of Jesus Christ and how it is that he died to pay the sin debt for men. For once explain your theology quoting some scripture and don’t worry about a long post. Give us your reasoning and logic for what you believe and preach. Please don’t hit us with these silly words someone has come up with.
Was God dying on that cross. If your answer is yes tell us how God can die and if it is no explain why he wasn’t God.
Thanks.

 

[SavedByGrace]

What? Where are you getting this?

Jesus Christ is eternally Almighty God. At His Incarnation He took upon Himself the very nature of humans derived from the Virgin Mary

This is what is very clear from Philippians 2:5-8

Jesus Christ was not in any way "human" before His Conception in Mary. This nature was added to the Divine Nature though in no way mixed.

 

[SavedByGrace]

Someone should start a new thread

 

[37818]

Someone should start a new thread

You have said that you know Greek. John 1.14 says that the Word BECAME flesh, that is something was ADDED.

The Word did not CHANGE into flesh!,

This is a language problem.
You and @JonC are not really in disagreement. Except how to word it. Beginning with Jesus Christ being both the LORD God and Him becoming a man.

 

[JonC]

No. John 1:14 was His own doing per the fact of John 1:2-3. He changed how He was with God, John 1:1-2, John 1:14 per John 1:3. Per John 1:3 He being the sole agent of change on behalf of the Father per Ephesians 3:9. Colossians 1:16-17.

I'm not exactly sure of your objection. I agree with your post, but this has absolutely nothing to do with my objection to SavedbyGrace.

I am saying that I believe orthodox Christianity is correct. Here we have one way of viewing it (hypostatic union), and that is a union of the divine nature and human nature, without mixture, inseparable, in Christ. God-man. No less God than God, no more man than man. 100%God, 100% man.

Saved by Grace called this "heresy".


The other issue was John 1:14. Saved by Grace said that γίνομαι (became) was an addition to Scripture because the Word did not become flesh.

I believe Scripture is correct and that γίνομαι belongs.