Grandstand discussion: "Ghost's Views on The Nature of Christ"

[godrulz]

Number one is just bone headed. 2 is correct. Have two souls is not a perquisite for 2 to be correct. That is just bizarre human reasoning. People need to stop trying to anyalize God and just take His word for what it says.

Here is my belief--Jesus is God incarnate. He did not have a human sin nature.

You wrongly assume the sinful nature theory of tradition which is not true. Having a human body/nature would not make him sinful. Having a dog nature does not make the dog a moral sinner. The human body of Adam was not sinful. He became sinful when he misused his faculties in disobedience to God.

There is no reason to deny Christ's human nature/body if we reject false views on sin/sin nature.

The virgin conception does not make Jesus sinless (Mary was a sinner and contributed genetically to His human nature...hence need to say sin passes through male sperm=nonsense). The virgin conception allows Deity to add humanity in the one person of Christ, the God-Man.

[godrulz]

Define your version of "nature"

Nature is a metaphysical/substance/being/ontology statement whereas sin, choice, volition, mind, etc. is technically a moral category (academically, philosophically, theologically).

A rock has a mineral nature. A dog has an animal/canine nature. A cat has a feline nature. God has a divine, uncreated, eternal spirit nature. Angels have a created angelic nature. Sinners and saints have a human nature (even the 2011 NIV corrects Gk. sarx from 'sinful nature'/preconceived theology back to literal 'flesh'...the semantic range of meaning with this word depends on context and is used in 8 different ways in the NT...so watch the proof texting/eisegesis). To say that man has a genetic sinful nature is a category confusion of morals vs metaphysics. It negates personal responsibility and accountability, opens the door to homosexuality being genetic vs chosen, reduces sin to the same level as brown hair and blue eyes (amoral).

I might say we form a sinful nature as we habitually chose to sin. I would not say we have a sinful nature passed on in the blood from Adam back of the will that makes us sin.

We are sinners because we sin; we are not sinners because our Christian parents had sex leading to conception in the confines of a godly marriage.

Tradition is not always truth.

Lest your shirt gets in a knot, we agree with the bottom line that all men are sinners in need of a sinless Savior (Rom. 1-5).

[Nang]

Uh, friends . . .

Here we are (and I have also shared in this) discussing the subject of the One on One debate that we are supposed to be observing.

There may never be a One on One debate on this subject if we keep providing it in the Grandstands.

C'mon ghost . . . there is lot's of interest in this subject and all of us want to know how you teach the Incarnation.

Step up and define your views in the proper forum.

Nang

[Sherman]

You wrongly assume the sinful nature theory of tradition which is not true. Having a human body/nature would not make him sinful. Having a dog nature does not make the dog a moral sinner. The human body of Adam was not sinful. He became sinful when he misused his faculties in disobedience to God.

There is no reason to deny Christ's human nature/body if we reject false views on sin/sin nature.

The virgin conception does not make Jesus sinless (Mary was a sinner and contributed genetically to His human nature...hence need to say sin passes through male sperm=nonsense). The virgin conception allows Deity to add humanity in the one person of Christ, the God-Man.

You make more sense than AMR does.

I still don't accept the notion that people, or Jesus had two spirits. That's just odd.

I choose to base my theology solely on what I can find in scripture, not on anything than any person drums up or theorizes.

[godrulz]

The one on one heat vs light illustrates why I am not quick to want to start one with Ghost (semantics, arrogance, ignorance would dominate).

I find it hard to believe that some thoughts and verses from their posts are not from a book or commentary without giving credit to the sources. I doubt they are composing original material without looking at a source off the top of their heads (not that it is totally unacceptable, but some credit should be given).

I disagree with AMR that a trichotomous view is part of the root problem. I am trichotomous, yet I have a similar, traditional incarnational understanding as AMR (so, non-sequitur). I am also not convinced that Apo and Docetic views are as strongly linked as AMR thinks. They are distinct heresies and some similarity should not mean complete lumping in with the label (Ghost may be Apo, but I don't think Doc. is a fair label since Ghost would reject Doc. quicker than Apo.). I would also think their articulations are salvific since both trust Jesus as God in the flesh (technical details vary and Scripture is not a systematic theology text).

[Nang]

You make more sense than AMR does.

How do you know? AMR has not had opportunity to fully express his views, yet.

(Plus, you are agreeing with godrulz's denial of original sin, you probably don't know!)

Nang

[ghost]

Nature is a metaphysical/substance/being/ontology statement whereas sin, choice, volition, mind, etc. is technically a moral category (academically, philosophically, theologically).

You must be tired, because the context of my question was in regards to your statement that Jesus has two natures, not about "sin nature".

Define nature in context to your claim that Jesus has two natures.

We know that Jesus came in the flesh, but to have everything that every man does He would have to have his own spirit (and/or soul - depending on a tri or di chotomy view) and his own mind as every man does. As AMR suggested, the man (Jesus) with his own spirit gave up that spirit when he died on the cross, while God the Son (Jesus) left the man Jesus to die and took His Spirit with Him.

[ghost]

Uh, friends . . .

Here we are (and I have also shared in this) discussing the subject of the One on One debate that we are supposed to be observing.

There may never be a One on One debate on this subject if we keep providing it in the Grandstands.

C'mon ghost . . . there is lot's of interest in this subject and all of us want to know how you teach the Incarnation.

Step up and define your views in the proper forum.

Nang

Waiting on AMR to respond to my post that explains the verse he provided. I am also hoping that Knight will remove AMR's posts that flat out lie about how he intentionally has deceived Knight, myself, and everyone else on this site, by claiming that we would discuss his claim that I teach Docetism, and then changing it to Apolloinarianism

[Sherman]

Nang, I don't accept everything godrulz says, he just not as far out there as AMR.

When held under a microscope--Theology written in books other than the bible just gets odd. I am choking on this Platonic two spirits idea.

I am not Armenian either.

[godrulz]

You must be tired, because the context of my question was in regards to your statement that Jesus has two natures, not about "sin nature".

Define nature in context to your claim that Jesus has two natures.

We know that Jesus came in the flesh, but to have everything that every man does He would have to have his own spirit (and/or soul - depending on a tri or di chotomy view) and his own mind as every man does. As AMR suggested, the man (Jesus) with his own spirit gave up that spirit when he died on the cross, while God the Son (Jesus) left to the man Jesus to die and took His Spirit with Him.

I would assume AMR is saying that the human spirit of Christ left the body at physical death, just like any other human who dies.

Jesus is God vs created angel (Arianism). He is not uncreated spirit floating around, but He also took on physical form, genuine humanity (Jn. 1; Phil. 2). Scripture does not give technical details on the exact nature of how God becomes man in Christ without ceasing to be God. For you, there is probably a semantical issue (what is 'nature'). I am saying that Jesus Christ is not mere man nor just divine. He has divine attributes (eternal Word made flesh) and human attributes (hungry, thirst, tired, died). He is not just God, not just man. He is one person.

I think your expression of details needs to be tweaked and that you should not object to one person with two natures if you would properly understand what is meant by nature.

The traditional view is that Jesus had two wills, divine and human will. I don't feel comfortable with that 'orthodox' statement, but I do feel comfortable talking about two natures, one mind.

There are incarnational heresies because Scripture does not read like a systematic theology book. I think you have a form of Apo that is not the best understanding, but I don't think it is a denial of incarnation like JWs are guilty of, etc. Likewise, whether AMR is right or wrong on the technical details, I think you agree on the bottom line that Jesus is God in the flesh, not a mere created being who is not God nor a God who is not also man in some sense.

Christology, anthropology, harmartiology are related in the incarnation. If one wrongly thinks that having a human nature is tantamount to having a sinful nature, then any talk of human nature will be and should be rejected. However, if being human with a body is not why we are guilty sinners, then we can retain divine/human nature semantics vs angel, rock, dog, etc.

[Sherman]

Waiting on AMR to respond to my post that explains the verse he provided. I am also hoping that Knight will remove AMR's posts that flat out lie about how he intentionally has deceived Knight, myself, and everyone else on this site, by claiming that we would discuss his claim that I teach Docetism, and then changing it to Apolloinarianism

I think he's trying to wiggle out of a losing battle. He can't prove you teach Docetism because you don't. His views are closer to Docetism than yours are.

[godrulz]

Waiting on AMR to respond to my post that explains the verse he provided. I am also hoping that Knight will remove AMR's posts that flat out lie about how he intentionally has deceived Knight, myself, and everyone else on this site, by claiming that we would discuss his claim that I teach Docetism, and then changing it to Apolloinarianism

He now seems to think they are related errors, so it is not a lie. He will have to be challenged to prove that they are related and you are guilty of both. I don't think it needs censorship as much as clarity.

You accuse me of being the spawn of Satan or teaching perfectionism. I think you are wrong, but I don't demand all your posts with your honest opinion be removed. I expect you to defend your conclusion and I expect to have a right to publicly disagree. A debate means people will say the wrong things because one view is right, the other wrong, or both wrong. Removing the error means we remove the debate.

[Nang]

AMR has begun his argument . . .

[godrulz]

I think he's trying to wiggle out of a losing battle. He can't prove you teach Docetism because you don't. His views are closer to Docetism than yours are.

A heretical view may have some truth to it. There are also nuances within any broad label.

Calvinists accuse Arminians of being Pelagians. Arm and Pel are both free will theists vs determinists, but the accusation is false since Arm. disagree with Pelagius on many points.

Likewise, Socinus had some true understanding about free will and the future, but he rejected the Deity of Christ. To pejoratively label Open Theists as Socinian is argumentum ad hominem, an unfair accusation/straw man.

Muslims believe in one God, but that does not make them Jews nor Christians who also believe in one God.

I believe in a future millennial kingdom, but that does not make me a JW. I believe in family, but that does not make me Mormon nor them Christian.

[Sherman]

I have a question--Doesn't Calvinism teach that all humans are fallen and their natures are fallen? How can Jesus have a fallen nature?