ECT Our triune God

[Jerry Shugart]

And the Bible clearly tells us that our Lord Jesus actually IS the second man, which YOU say we mistakenly believe.

So who is right?

According to your ideas the Lord Jesus did not become Man until He was born of Mary. So tell me how it is possible that He was the second man?

As I said previously, Paul was using the Lord Jesus and His spiritual body in order to illustrate what He said here:

"It is sown a natural body; it is raised a spiritual body. There is a natural body, and there is a spiritual body" (1 Cor.15:44).​

He uses Adam as an example of a man who originally had a "natural" body and he contrasts that to a Man who originally had a "spiritual" body:

"And so it is written, The first man Adam was made a living soul; the last Adam a quickening spirit" (1 Cor.15:45).​

Here Paul is describing the Lord Jesus as being a "spirit." The Greek word translated "spirit" is the same Greek word which the Lord Jesus used here:

"Behold my hands and my feet, that it is I myself: handle me, and see; for a spirit hath not flesh and bones, as ye see me have" (Lk.24:39).​

Paul is speaking of the Lord Jesus' spiritual, heavenly body. So this proves that neither a "flesh and bones body" or a "flesh and blood" body are essential to humanity. After all, the Lord Jesus remains a Man while in heaven even though He no longer has a flesh and bones body.

Paul was using the natural body of Adam as well as the spiritual body of the Lord Jesus in order to illustrate the next verse:

"Howbeit that was not first which is spiritual, but that which is natural; and afterward that which is spiritual" (1 Cor.15:46).​

So the order of what is said at Luke 24:39 is not to be taken in a literal sense unless you want to argue that the Lord Jesus was the last man.

 

[Jerry Shugart]

Here is where you fail, because you falsely attribute to God ONLY ONE NATURE... As if there even CAN BE ANY OTHER natures which God MIGHT BE...

I always said God has two natures, both Man and God. And since God does not change, He has always been both God and Man.

You are making a metaphysical argument from fallen human philosophy...

Does not the Bible reveal that the Lord Jesus is wholly Man and wholly God?

The way I count that means He had two natures, not just one.

 

[PneumaPsucheSoma]

I am still trying to sink ordinary teeth into this not ordinary at all multi-phenomenality you keep pointing to in the middle of the living room that nobody else is able to see at all except you alone...

So help me here, PPS... Can you give me some examples of this multi-phenomenality in terms of ordinary human experience? I am really having a hard time following a trail I cannot see... And when it comes to most trails, I tend to be a Bloodhound... But this spoor is elusive...

Arsenios

God (as a singular hypostasis) is uncreated phenomenon.

All else is created, and is post-utterance phenomenon. Anterior to the divine creative utterance, there was no creation as phenomenon. All creation, including heaven, was merely noumenon.

God's uncreated phenomenon is ontologically incompatible with created phenomenon. He had to "get into" heaven. Occupy it. Inhabit it. It (creation, including heaven) didn't objectively exist until He created it.

To have existence in created phenomenon, God as uncreated phenomenon couldn't just "be there" after instantiation of creation in any manner without "formatting" His divine hypostasis to be within creation.

The Son is God's eternal singular hypostasis (as is the Holy Spirit), "formatted" to be within the created heaven and cosmos. The plurality and distinction is "vertical" multi-phenomenality, not "horizontal" multi-hypostaticism in one phenomenon of existence.

 

[Arsenios]

According to your ideas the Lord Jesus did not become Man until He was born of Mary.
So tell me how it is possible that He was the second man?

"The first man is of the earth, earthy: the second man is the Lord from heaven" (1 Cor.15:47).

You will just have to argue this one out with Paul, Jer'...

Arsenios

 

[Arsenios]

God (as a singular hypostasis) is uncreated phenomenon.

All else is created, and is post-utterance phenomenon. Anterior to the divine creative utterance, there was no creation as phenomenon. All creation, including heaven, was merely noumenon.

God's uncreated phenomenon is ontologically incompatible with created phenomenon. He had to "get into" heaven. Occupy it. Inhabit it. It (creation, including heaven) didn't objectively exist until He created it.

To have existence in created phenomenon, God as uncreated phenomenon couldn't just "be there" after instantiation of creation in any manner without "formatting" His divine hypostasis to be within creation.

The Son is God's eternal singular hypostasis (as is the Holy Spirit), "formatted" to be within the created heaven and cosmos. The plurality and distinction is "vertical" multi-phenomenality, not "horizontal" multi-hypostaticism in one phenomenon of existence.

Thank-you PPS...

I must say that I get nervous when I start telling God what He can and cannot do, what He is able and not able to do... The Son being God "formatted" to be compatible with creation, because God is NOT compatible with creation, was a great clue...

We hold that God is unutterably compatible with creation, but that creation is utterly other than God... eg That compatibility is directional from God, but not to God...

I see the 3D now, somewhat of a pyramid at this point, the great chain of being attaining unto compatibility with that which is not God to that which IS God...

Maybe the cube will come later...

Thanks again...

Arsenios

 

[fzappa13]

Thank-you PPS...

I must say that I get nervous when I start telling God what He can and cannot do, what He is able and not able to do... The Son being God "formatted" to be compatible with creation, because God is NOT compatible with creation, was a great clue...

We hold that God is unutterably compatible with creation, but that creation is utterly other than God... eg That compatibility is directional from God, but not to God...

I see the 3D now, somewhat of a pyramid at this point, the great chain of being attaining unto compatibility with that which is not God to that which IS God...

Maybe the cube will come later...

Thanks again...

Arsenios

I have long referred to the Bible as God's Rubik's cube ... our problem is one of perspective ... we get one side the same color and think we've got the thing worked out.

 

[Jerry Shugart]

"The first man is of the earth, earthy: the second man is the Lord from heaven" (1 Cor.15:47).

You will just have to argue this one out with Paul, Jer'...

Why didn't you answer my question?

Since you say that the Lord Jesus did not become Man until He was born of Mary then how can you say that He was the second man?

Do you believe that there was no other man in the world after Adam until the Lord Jesus was born of Mary?

 

[Arsenios]

Why didn't you answer my question?

Because Paul answered it...

Since you say that the Lord Jesus did not become Man until He was born of Mary then how can you say that He was the second man?

Because Paul said it.

"The first man is of the earth, earthy:
the second man is the Lord from heaven"
(1 Cor.15:47).

Your argument is now with Paul, not me...

Do you believe that there was no other man in the world after Adam until the Lord Jesus was born of Mary?

That is a philosophical question.

The Biblical answer is this:
There were no living men on earth after Adam...
Until Christ...
For all have sinned...
All are born into Adam's death...
Indeed all are born dead...

After Adam all we have are still-births and miscarriages...

That is why we are only ALIVE when IN Christ...

And it is why APART FROM Christ we are only DEAD...

Get it?

Got it?

Good!

Arsenios

 

[Jerry Shugart]

The Biblical answer is this:
There were no living men on earth after Adam...
Until Christ...
For all have sinned...
All are born into Adam's death...
Indeed all are born dead...

After Adam all we have are still-births and miscarriages...

You can't be serious!

Men are men whether or not they are born spiritually dead. You seem to think that they cease to be men if they are born spiritually dead. And what about Zacharias, who was righteous before God and was filled with the Holy Spirit (Lk.1:5-6, 67),all before the birth of the Lord Jesus by Mary.

Doesn't he count as a living man?

 

[Soror1]

We have simply gone to the Greek term 'nous' anymore - Which I understand internally as the mind anterior to thoughts and images and sensations... For Hellen Keller, just the latter...

Light bulb went on--thank you.

Nor can we see the Prosopon of the Logos this side of the grave, but only of the Incarnate Christ... And after the Ascension, only in the faces of His Holy Ones, where even a passing shadow can bring healing...

I think the OT argues against this. The presence of God's Logos is recognized, known and praised:

The Old Testament has given an essential contribution to the New Testament christological message for Christ as Logos, translated as the Word. The Word is with God from the beginning (Gen 1:1 John 1:1), powerfully creative (Gen 1:1-2:4 Isa 55:10-11 Ps 33:6,9;107:20 Judith 16:14) and God's personified self-expression (Wis 18:14-16). Like wisdom,[28] the word expresses God's active power and self-revelation in the created world.
​

Granted, there was even more revelation with the advent of the Word in the flesh.

Well, the "Face" had to pass from sight, and the "Backward Parts" were what lit Moses up in his facial radiance...

Okay, we may be saying the same thing. But I would not equate face with essence. Moses saw God's backward parts--so we know it's not His face. But yet He saw something and if one aspect of God's essence is His goodness, then Moses saw that. Or maybe this is where the Orthodox essence/energies distinction comes in?

Which is what it is...

Essence is to ti estan einai, where ti = wealth

What's the literal translation of the other parts of this?

I also decided I liked "property" better than "wealth"--as translated in the ESV. Because then you can much more easily make the jump from parable to metaphysics (don't fear that word! :O It's just a study of being and cannot be avoided...). In other words, an easy jump from the father's property as in estate, to the Father's property as in be-ing.

11 And he said, “There was a man who had two sons. 12 And the younger of them said to his father, ‘Father, give me the share of property [ousia, your be-ing] that is coming to me.’ And he divided his property [ousia, be-ing] between them. 13 Not many days later, the younger son gathered all he had and took a journey into a far country, and there he squandered his property [be-ing] in reckless living...​

Triple AMEN kudos!

But the Father did not give the prodigal His Essence, but only His Ousia/Wealth... Which was squandered...

Essence, you see, CANNOT be squandered...

Not the Divine Essence...

Hence the Cherubim guarding the Garden with its Tree of Life...

Arsenios

He let his sons participate in His property/wealth (His be-ing)--for in Him we live, and move, and have our be-ing. The son was squandering that great gift of be-ing.

Better?

 

[Arsenios]

You can't be serious!

Back at ya!

Men are men whether or not they are born spiritually dead.

Zombies...

You seem to think that they cease to be men if they are born spiritually dead.

Dead men walkin'...

And what about Zacharias, who was righteous before God and was filled with the Holy Spirit (Lk.1:5-6, 67),all before the birth of the Lord Jesus by Mary.

The righteous dead are still dead.

Escape from the death of Adam only arrived on the earth with the incarnation of our Lord, Jesus Christ. You can read all about it in Hebrews 11, how without us, none of those blessed righteous would would be made perfect apart from us in Christ...

Possession of the Holy Spirit in great Faith is not salvation, you see, but entry into Christ IS, and as Scripture records in Paul, we are baptized into Christ... Like Paul was by Ananias...

Doesn't he count as a living man?

Zacharias? Martyred by the Jews between the Altar and the Temple? Or John the Baptist, the greatest of the Prophets, because he not only foretold Christ, but baptized Him? What does Christ say of him and all those before Him? "The LEAST in the Kingdom of Heaven is greater than he..."

Theirs was human righteousness outside of the Body of Christ... They did not eat His Flesh and drink His Blood, and therefore they had no Life in them...

They only received that Life AFTER Christ resurrected from the dead...

Arsenios

 

[Soror1]

I tried offering this thought in another thread and the silence was deafening. I thought at this juncture it might be worth another go. In trying to understand the opening stanzas of the Gospel of John and so much else offered concerning the relationship between Jesus and His Father I came to see that relationship as an expression of the relationship between the thinker and his thought once verbalized.

The thought exists prior to being verbalized and has an intimacy with the thinker that is partially lost when uttered (John 17:5). Nonetheless, the thought, having been verbalized, takes on a life of its own to accomplish the purpose of He who thought it and then spoke it. It is, and always will be, of the speaker in any meaningful way.

So, how about those who hear said Word?

I think this is very close to PPS' view.

I don't put any special emphasis on this thought gaining more substantial existence upon being uttered but rather when conceived.

But I very much agree with your "the relationship between Jesus and His Father I came to see that relationship as an expression of the relationship between the thinker and his thought"

 

[Jerry Shugart]

Dead men walkin'...

"Men" nonetheless.

Escape from the death of Adam only arrived on the earth with the incarnation of our Lord, Jesus Christ.

You have fallen for the nonsense put out by the Calvinists:

"They (Adam & Eve) being the root of mankind, the guilt of this sin was imputed, and the same death in sin and corrupted nature conveyed to all their posterity, descending from them by original generation" [emphasis added] (The Westminster Confession of Faith; VI/3).​

According to the Calvinists the "guilt" and "death in sin" of the sins of Adam and Eve was imputed to all of their posterity, and their posterity includes their sons Cain and Abel. So the Calvinists teach that the sons are guilty of their fathers sins despite the fact God will do no such thing, as witnessed by the following passage:

"The soul who sins is the one who will die. The son will not share the guilt of the father, nor will the father share the guilt of the son" (Ezek.18:20; NIV).

What is said here declares in no uncertain terms that children do not bear the responsibility for the sins of their parents. It is also a fact that a person dies spiritually as a result of his own sin and not as a result of Adam's sin:

"But every man is tempted, when he is drawn away of his own lust, and enticed. Then when lust hath conceived, it bringeth forth sin: and sin, when it is finished, bringeth forth death" (Jas.1:14-15).​

"What fruit had ye then in those things whereof ye are now ashamed? for the end of those things is death...For the wages of sin is death; but the gift of God is eternal life through Jesus Christ our Lord" (Ro.6:21,23).​

From all of this we can understand that a person does not emerge from the womb in a state described as being spiritually dead. If a person is born spirtually dead as a result of Adam's sin then it would be impossible for him to die spiritually as a result of his own sin. That is because a person must be alive spiritually before he can die spiritually. The very definition of "death" demands that a person must be alive spiritually before he can die spiritually: "the end of life" (Merriam-Webster.com.).

Possession of the Holy Spirit in great Faith is not salvation, you see, but entry into Christ IS, and as Scripture records in Paul, we are baptized into Christ... Like Paul was by Ananias...

So are you saying that no one can be saved unless they are baptized with water?

Why did Paul and those with him not know that?:

"And brought them out, and said, Sirs, what must I do to be saved? And they said, Believe on the Lord Jesus Christ, and thou shalt be saved, and thy house" (Acts 16:30-31).​

You get deeper and deeper into error when you try to prove that the Lord Jesus was the second man, that there were no other men between Adam and the Lord Jesus.

 

[Jerry Shugart]

So I think you, Jerry, would affirm that in the Word (God) becoming man, nothing changed regarding "His character, will, and covenant promises" simply with the addition of flesh.

If the Lord Jesus became Man and He wasn't man before then it is ridiculous to argue that He did not undergo a change.

I notice that you were unable to quote even one verse that answers what I said about your idea that the Lord Jesus originally only had one nature and then at another point He acquired another nature but yet He was not changed.

So (whether you agree or not), you are engaged in metaphysics.

No, metaphysics relates to philosophy, and philosophy is based on speculation. Why would anyone employ that since we have right before us the sure word of God?

Strictly speaking, and metaphysically, it was the Word who became flesh (not Jesus Christ per se though we can certainly say of the Word that He is Jesus Christ).

That idea is based on nothing but speculation because the scriptures state that the Lord Jesus Himself was made like His brothers:

"For verily he took not on him the nature of angels; but he took on him the seed of Abraham. Wherefore in all things it behoved him to be made like unto his brethren, that he might be a merciful and faithful high priest in things pertaining to God, to make reconciliation for the sins of the people" (Heb.2:16-17).​

Metaphysics will get you nothing but error.

Here is what the Lord Jesus said:

"All things are delivered unto me of my Father: and no man knoweth the Son, but the Father; neither knoweth any man the Father, save the Son, and he to whomsoever the Son will reveal him" (Mt.11:27).​

It is a gross error to speculate about the things we do not know about the Lord Jesus. However, the Bible does reveal things about Him to us. And here is one of those things:

"And no man hath ascended up to heaven, but he that came down from heaven, even the Son of man which is in heaven" (Jn.3:13).​

It was as Man that the Lord Jesus came down from heaven. That means that He was Man before He was born of Mary.And this verse teaches practically the same thing:

"What and if ye shall see the Son of man ascend up where he was before?" (Jn.6:62).​

The Lord Jesus was in heaven as Man before He came down to earth.

The Lord Jesus was previously in heaven as Man.

You cannot seem to understand that a flesh and blood body is not essential to humanity. But do not those believers who are in heaven now, without flesh and blood bodies, remain men? Of course it is the "inner man" who is in heaven even though the "outward man" has long since perished.

 

[Soror1]

Earlier, I said:

Let us look at these verses which prove that the Lord Jesus existed as "Man" before being born of Mary:

"And no man hath ascended up to heaven, but he that came down from heaven, even the Son of man which is in heaven" (Jn.3:13).​

Here there can be no doubt that when the Lord Jesus came down from earth it was as Son of Man.​

to this you said:



Yes, this refers to the Lord Jesus sitting on the throne of David:

"I saw in the night visions, and, behold, one like the son of man came with the clouds of heaven, and came to the Ancient of days, and they brought him near before him. And there was given him dominion, and glory, and a kingdom, that all people, nations, and languages, should serve him: his dominion is an everlasting dominion, which shall not pass away, and his kingdom that which shall not be destroyed" (Dan.7:13-14).​

According to Peter the Lord Jesus will rule as a "Man" on the throne of David:

"Men and brethren, let me freely speak unto you of the patriarch David, that he is both dead and buried, and his sepulchre is with us unto this day. Therefore being a prophet, and knowing that God had sworn with an oath to him, that of the fruit of his loins, according to the flesh, he would raise up Christ to sit on his throne" (Acts 2:29-30).​

This can only be referring to the Lord Jesus Christ sitting on the throne of David as "Man."

And these words of the LORD also confirm that fact:

"The Lord hath sworn in truth unto David; he will not turn from it; Of the fruit of thy body will I set upon thy throne" (Ps.132:11).​

So the words "Son of Man" as in "one like the Son of Man" in Daniel had nothing to do with the Lord Jesus' pre-existent deity, as you say here:



Peter and the LORD certainly understood that the Lord Jesus sitting on the throne of David mentioned in the seventh chapter of Daniel had nothing to do with anything except His humanity.



There is nothing in Daniel that even hints that the Lord Jesus sitting upon the throne of David was "a claim to the pre-existent deity of Daniel."

Where is the blasphemy here?

But he remained silent and made no answer. Again the high priest asked him, “Are you the Christ, the Son of the Blessed?” 62 And Jesus said, “I am, and you will see the Son of Man seated at the right hand of Power, and coming with the clouds of heaven.” 63 And the high priest tore his garments and said, “What further witnesses do we need? 64 You have heard his blasphemy.​

With that understood, then there can be no doubt that the Lord Jesus was Man when He came down from heaven:

"And no man hath ascended up to heaven, but he that came down from heaven, even the Son of man which is in heaven" (Jn.3:13).​

And this verse teaches practically the same thing:

"What and if ye shall see the Son of man ascend up where he was before?" (Jn.6:62).​

The Lord Jesus was previously in heaven as Man.

You cannot seem to understand that a flesh and blood body is not essential to humanity. But do not those believers who are in heaven now, without flesh and blood bodies, remain men? Of course it is the "inner man" who is in heaven even though the "outward man" has long since perished.

Here is the thing. You claim that this property called "inner man" is essential to humanity.

So here is a question: Was Jesus "inner man" in heaven created?

You have boxed yourself in, Jerry...

And I'll show you why depending on your answer.

There is nothing here that explains how what he said can be reconciled with what is said here:

"Jesus Christ the same yesterday, and to day, and for ever" (Hebrews 13:8).​

Let's start with this:

The Word, the same yesterday, and today, and forever.

Can we agree?

 

[Soror1]

Paul used the Lord Jesus to illustrate the following two principles:

"It is sown a natural body; it is raised a spiritual body. There is a natural body, and there is a spiritual body" (1 Cor.15:44).​

"Howbeit that was not first which is spiritual, but that which is natural; and afterward that which is spiritual" (1 Cor.15:46).​

So when Paul speaks of the first man Adam he is referring to the first man with a natural body. In fact, that is one of the meanings of the Greek word translated "man" in this verse:

"And so it is written, The first man Adam was made a living soul; the last Adam was made a quickening spirit" (1 Cor.15:45).

One of the meanings of the Greek word translated "man" in this verse is "with reference to two fold nature of man, body and soul" (Thayer's Greek English Lexicon).

You should find it at least a little bit interesting that there is no reference to "inner man" which you say is the essence of man in the definition of "man" in this lexicon but instead the "two fold nature of man, body and soul" which can only mean the "inner man" is soul. Which is, of course, created.

Keeping in the context which is about different bodies Paul then uses the Lord Jesus to illustrate to what He said here:

"Howbeit that was not first which is spiritual, but that which is natural; and afterward that which is spiritual" (1 Cor.15:46).​

This is used to illustrate that principle:

"...the last Adam was made a quickening spirit" (1 Cor.14:5).​

The only reason that Adam is spoken of as being first was only for the reason to illustrate what Paul said here:

"Howbeit that was not first which is spiritual, but that which is natural; and afterward that which is spiritual" (1 Cor.15:46).​

It is a mistake to take the order literally, or else we must believe that the Lord Jesus was the second man:

"The first man is of the earth, earthy: the second man is the Lord from heaven" (1 Cor.15:47).​

He was the second man. They were both sons of God--"the son of Adam, the son of God" (Luke 3:38). You and I are sons of men.

If you recognize that "son" in Adam as son of God and Christ as son of God mean very different things, then I think you need to recognize that "man" in first man and second man mean very different things. Likewise, it is a mistake to take "man of heaven" literally--as if Jesus was a man before...He was a man!

 

[Jerry Shugart]

Here is the thing. You claim that this property called "inner man" is essential to humanity.

Yes.

So here is a question: Was Jesus "inner man" in heaven created?

No, He has always been both Man and God. Were it otherwise then the following verse could not possibly be true:

"Jesus Christ the same yesterday, and to day, and for ever" (Heb.13:8).​

Where is the blasphemy here?

But he remained silent and made no answer. Again the high priest asked him, “Are you the Christ, the Son of the Blessed?” 62 And Jesus said, “I am, and you will see the Son of Man seated at the right hand of Power, and coming with the clouds of heaven.” 63 And the high priest tore his garments and said, “What further witnesses do we need? 64 You have heard his blasphemy.

The High Priest knew that the Lord Jesus was claiming to be God when He acknowledged that He is the Son of the Blessed, meaning the Son of the Blessed God. That is why he was charged with blasphemy.

And that is exactly what the Jews believed as well, as witnessed by the Lord Jesus here:

"Say ye of him, whom the Father hath sanctified, and sent into the world, Thou blasphemest; because I said, I am the Son of God?" (Jn.10:36).​

And the blasphemy they charged Him with for saying that He is the Son of God is this:

"We are not stoning you for any good work,” they replied, “but for blasphemy, because you, a mere man, claim to be God" (Jn.10:33).​

So not only the high priest but all the Jews at John 10 understood that when the Lord said that He is the Son of God they understood that He was claiming to be God. And that is why they charged Him with blasphemy and that is why the Jews wanted to kill Him (Jn.19:7).

With that understood it is easy to know that when the Lord used the term "Son of God" He was referring to Himself as God. And when He used the term "Son of Man" He was referring to Himself as Man.

And these words prove that it was as Man that He came down from heaven, proving that He was Man before being born of Mary:

"And no man hath ascended up to heaven, but he that came down from heaven, even the Son of man which is in heaven" (Jn.3:13).​

And the Lord Jesus says practically the same thing here:

"What and if ye shall see the Son of man ascend up where he was before?" (Jn.6:62).​

What He is saying there can only mean one thing, that He was in heaven as Man prior to being born of Mary.

But for some reason you just cannot believe what He said.

Let's start with this:

The Word, the same yesterday, and today, and forever.

Can we agree?

Do you never tire of your metaphysical arguments? I prefer what is written in the Bible because I have no interest in speculation.

 

[Soror1]

Yes.

So here is a question: Was Jesus "inner man" in heaven created?

No, He has always been both Man and God. Were it otherwise then the following verse could not possibly be true:

"Jesus Christ the same yesterday, and to day, and for ever" (Heb.13:8).​

Bang head here...

Let's start with this:

The Word, the same yesterday, and today, and forever.

Can we agree?

Do you never tire of your metaphysical arguments? I prefer what is written in the Bible because I have no interest in speculation.

...and here ("the Word became flesh").

LOL!

I like you, Jerry. I really do.

And docetism is my very favorite heresy (and I mean that in all sincerity and I am NOT calling you a heretic but you lean heavily docetic.) So, it has to be explained why that is a problem.

But I am too tired now and am going to bed and will be back to address your posts.

 

[patrick jane]

You can't be serious!

Men are men whether or not they are born spiritually dead. You seem to think that they cease to be men if they are born spiritually dead. And what about Zacharias, who was righteous before God and was filled with the Holy Spirit (Lk.1:5-6, 67),all before the birth of the Lord Jesus by Mary.

Doesn't he count as a living man?

was he sinless ? - was Job ? Moses ? Noah ? Abraham ?

Romans 3:10 KJV -

- Romans 3:29 KJV - -

Romans 3:30 KJV -

 

[Ask Mr. Religion]

So according to this, the Lord Jesus originally existed with only one nature and then at some point in time He took on another entirely nature but He experienced no change!

I knew that you Calvinists believe some strange things but this tops them all.

Our Lord was fully God and fully man in an indissoluble union whereby the second person of the Trinity assumed a human nature that cannot be separated, divided, mixed, or confused.

You are confusing and mixing the divine and human natures. They remain distinct, not blended together. The natures do not co-mingle. In other words, the attributes or properties of one nature do not change the attributes or properties of the other. But while the human and divine natures never communicate their properties to each other, as we will see, it is possible for them to communicate their properties to the one person of Jesus.

These natures do not intermingle (they are “without confusion”). In other words, Jesus's human nature does not infect or corrupt His divine nature. And His divine nature does not infect or corrupt his human nature. This is called the communicatio idiomatum (communication of properties or attributes). The attributes of one nature cannot communicate (transfer/share) with another nature. Jesus's humanity did not become divinitized. It remained complete and perfect humanity (with all its limitations). The natures can communicate with the Person, but not with each other. Therefore, the attribute of omnipresence (present everywhere) cannot communicate to his humanity to make his humanity omnipresent. If it did, we lose our representative High Priest, since we don’t have this attribute communicated to our nature. Jesus must always remain as we are in order to be the Priest and Pioneer of our faith. What does all of this mean? Jesus’s body cannot be at more than one place at a time, much less at millions of places across the world every Sunday during the Romanist Mass.

The same one who ascended into heaven had descended from heaven (Eph. 4:9), as to person not as to both natures of the person. He descended as Logos, he ascended as theanthropos (God-man). Again caution here is warranted as there was no co-mingling of the divine and human natures.

Thus, Christendom asserts that the Incarnation did not result in a change in God, for He does not change. The divine essence remained as it has always been from eternity. From John 1:14 the Word was made flesh not by conversion and change, but by assumption of flesh and blood.

Ubiquity of the human nature is denied. This does not mean a separation of the two natures then follows. It is one thing for the Logos to be without flesh by non-inclusion and in this sense it is conceded because it is not included in it being infinite. It is another thing to be out of it by separation (we deny) because although it is not included still it is nowhere separated from the flesh. The Word is somewhere where the flesh of the Word is not.

The physical nature of Jesus ascended into heaven and is there now—and is not anywhere else. The divine nature of Jesus is God the Second Person of the Trinity, and is not limited to the physical confines of the body of Jesus. When God the Second Person of the Trinity was incarnated in Jesus, he was not confined to any place that Jesus happened to be in Palestine.


See:
http://www.desiringgod.org/articles/anhypostasis-what-kind-of-flesh-did-jesus-take

http://www.desiringgod.org/articles/enhypostasis-what-kind-of-flesh-did-the-word-become

Read:
http://www.amazon.com/gp/product/0830815376
http://www.amazon.com/gp/product/080544422X


You are beyond the bounds of all of Christendom with your view. Beware. Speak with your Pastor about this as soon as possible.

Do you think that when Our Lord was walking the earth the second Person of the Trinity was no longer omnipresent, instead being confined to the earthy realm for thirty-three years or so?

AMR