Discussion - Enyart vs. Ask Mr Religion (One on One)

[CabinetMaker]

First, you quote the Chalcedonian definition I carefully described in my original post as being associated with the WCF. It is not. The Chalcedonian item is a 1,500 year old statement describing the incarnate nature of Christ that is accepted by virtually all of Christendom (Catholic, Orthodox Greek, and Protestant). Indeed, no other such statement has survived virtually unchanged and accepted by Christendom, even through the split of the Eastern and Western churches in the eleventh century, and the Reformation. I would greatly appreciate any answer you have to my previous question about what your specific disagreements are with respect to the incarnate nature of Christ described therein.

Second, you appear to have overlooked the actual WCF section, VIII/vii, I quoted:

"Christ, in the work of mediation, acts according to both natures; by each nature doing that which is proper to itself; yet, by reason of the unity of the person, that which is proper to one nature is sometimes in scripture attributed to the person denominated by the other nature."

This is an important observation of the treatment given in the Scriptures of the incarnate Christ. As further explanation of this statement, the following is excerpted from the Incarnation entry on the from the Elwell Evangelical Dictionary of Theology, 2001, pg. 602:

“Because Jesus Christ is the God-man (one person who took human nature into union with his divine nature in the one divine person), the Scriptures can predicate of his person whatever can be predicated of either nature. In fact, the person of Christ may be designated in terms of one nature while what is predicated of him so designated is true by virtue of his union with the other nature (cf. Westminister Confession, VIII, vii). In other words:

1. The person, and not a nature, is the subject of the statement when what is predicated of Christ is true by virtue of all that belongs to his person as essentially divine and assumptively human; e.g., redeemer; prophet, priest, and king.

2. The person, and not a nature, is the subject of the statement when what is predicated of him, designated in terms of what he is as human, is true by virtue of his divine nature; e.g., in Romans 9:5 Christ is designated according to his human nature ("Christ according to the flesh"), while what is predicated of him is true because of his divine nature ("God over all, blessed forever"). The Scriptures do not confuse or intermingle the natures. It is the person of Christ who is always the subject of the scriptural assertions about him.

3. The person, and not a nature, is the subject of the statement, when what is predicated of him, designated in terms of what he is as divine, is true by virtue of his human nature; e.g., in I Corinthians 2:8 Christ is designated according to his divine nature ("the Lord of glory"), while what is predicated of him is true because of his human nature (man "crucified" him). Again, there is no confusion here of the divine and human natures of Christ.It is not the divine nature as such which is crucified; it is the divine person, because he is also human, who is crucified.” (emphasis mine)
​

Hence, in Matthew 24:36 or Mark 13:32 we find Christ is designating Himself in the terms of his divine nature (“the Son”, “the Father”), but then He predicates (i.e., ‘affirms one thing of another’) His ignorance of the Second Coming is true in terms of His human nature, but not in terms of His divine nature. In other words, the God-man is shown in these verses self-consciously omniscient as God and consciously ignorant as man simultaneously.


Third, your conclusion drawn from your reading of the Chalcedonian description is incorrect. This is understandable, for when speaking of the Incarnation, some careful distinctions are made by theologians in words like person, nature, conscious, self-conscious. You conclude “what one nature knows the other nature must know”. That is incorrect and clear from a careful reading of the Chalcedonian description:

“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”

The word ‘nature’ as used when speaking of the Incarnation means a complex of attributes. It does not mean ‘person’. The divine attributes are not somehow passed to man and the human attributes are not transmitted to the divine. If you assume the two natures are compounded in some manner you fall into one of the six possible heresies of the Incarnation I described that motivated the creation of the Chalcedonian description.

For it was against the Eutychians that the Chalcedonian description confessed that in Christ were two natures without any confusion or change, each nature preserved and concurring in one person. And it was against the Nestorians that the description spoke throughout of one and the same Son and one person and one subsistence, not parted or divided into two persons and whose natures are in union without division and without separation. The description made it clear that a ‘person/hypostatis’ was a self-conscious substantive entity, while a ‘nature’ was a complex of attributes. That person/hypostatis was the divine Son of God. The human nature of Jesus possessed no hypostatis of its own, that is, unless the Son of God entered Mary’s womb, Jesus would not have existed. There was no “man” without this divine action. The description denies that the Son of God took into union with Himself a human person, instead the Chalcedonian description insists that He took into union with himself a full complex of human attributes (doctrine of anhypostasia). It also means that there was not two self-consciousnesses within Jesus. At the Incarnation the one Son remained self-consciously divine and consciously human as well.

The human and divine natures of Christ were essentially distinct as they were brought together, and though joined in the hypostatic union, a personal union, the two natures are not blended nor commingled. Moreover, the union thusly constituted is inseparable. As the Chalcedonian description implies, these natures are not converted into one another, that is, the divine into the human to make a divine man, or the human into the divine to make a human God. The two natures are also not compounded and blended together to no longer be distinguishable, to make a third that is different from the two. Lastly, the two natures are not confused in any manner, or so mixed together that the essential properties of both natures are indiscriminately existing in the theanthropic person.

Instead the Chalcedonian description teaches that true deity and real humanity are joined together in an inseparable personal union in the person of Christ incarnate. Christ is truly God and really man. But there is only one Christ and one Mediator between God and man. While there are two centers of consciousness, there is but one divine self-consciousness in the Incarnate God, Christ. The theanthropic person is one, but constitutes the two natures, complete, but not commingled.

This is a very long post that contradicts your own assertions. Our discussion started based on this answer:

AMRA-BEQ16 - Ask Mr. Religion Responds:
No. Christ is God and cannot divest himself of any of His attributes. Thus, Christ did not divest Himself of knowledge or power. As I argued in AMRA-BEQ2, the attributes of God are identical with His being. For God to divest Himself of any of His attributes, He would not be the simpliciter God, but a composite God that is decomposable, divisible into parts. Yet God is pure actuality, thus having no potentiality, for that which has potential can be divided. If God could be divided, then God could be changed, as would be the case if He were able to divest Himself of some of His attributes. A divisible God is changeable, therefore not an immutable God. This is contrary to the Scriptural revelation of God.

1st you state that God cannot divest Himself of any of His attributes.
2nd, you state that God is not dividable because He would no longer be immutable.

When faced with Matthew 24:36, you have generated to long posts that say the two natures of Christ are dividable. Items 1, 2 and 3 above are used by you to show that there is a difference between person and nature. If, as you stated in your answer to BEQ16, Gods attributes are identical with His Being, how can there be a difference between nature and person?

Finally, you say that I miss-understand the Chalcedonian. Look at what it says, “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”. It states that two natures exist that are indivisible and inseparable. It seems quite clear from this statement that the two natures must be aware of each other. So when you say that Jesus as God knows the hour but Jesus the man does not, that requires that two natures are to some degree inseparable and divisible. The divine nature would have to hide from the human nature its knowledge of the hour of the end time. That sets up a contradiction with your answer to BEQ16 as Jesus hiding His divine knowledge from His human self requires Jesus to separate His two natures and give up some of His knowledge.

I look forward to your reply. God be with you.

 

[Nang]

So when you say that Jesus as God knows the hour but Jesus the man does not, that requires that two natures are to some degree inseparable and divisible. The divine nature would have to hide from the human nature its knowledge of the hour of the end time. That sets up a contradiction with your answer to BEQ16 as Jesus hiding His divine knowledge from His human self requires Jesus to separate His two natures and give up some of His knowledge.

I look forward to your reply. God be with you.
[/FONT]

I probably should not weigh in . . .but I will

Just to point out CM, that you are not making any distinction between Father and Son in your argument.

The Father alone has authority over the times and seasons, and created beings are forbidden knowledge of these things. Jesus clearly taught the same thing to His disciples, when they asked Him again about His promised return, at the time of His ascension:

"And He said to them, 'It is not for you to know the times or seasons which the Father has put in His own authority.'" Acts 1:7

While discussing these passages with my husband, he reminded me that Jesus was born of flesh as a babe, and learned the things of God from His studies of the Holy Scriptures:

"And the child grew, and waxed strong in spirit, filled with wisdom: and the grace of God was upon him." Luke 2:40

"Now it was that after three days they found Him in the temple, sitting in the midst of the teachers, both listening to them and asking them questions. And all who heard Him were astonished at His understanding and answers. So when they saw Him, they were amazed; and His mother said to Him, 'Son, why have You done this to us? Look, Your father and I have sought You anxiously.' And He said to them, 'Why did you seek Me? Did you not know that I must be about My Father's business?' But they did not understand the statement which He spoke to them. . .And Jesus increased in wisdom and stature, and in favor with God and men." Luke 2:46-52

"Though he were a Son, yet learned He obedience by the things which he suffered." Hebrews 5:8

It is important to remember that the Son of God, equal to the Father in glory and attributes, volitionally came into this world as flesh and blood like His elect children in the same limitations of flesh, in order that they might "have a High Priest," who could sympathize with their weaknesses.

"We see Jesus, who was made a little lower than the angels, for the suffering of death, crowned with glory and honor, that He, by the grace of God, might taste death for everyone, for it was fitting for Him, for whom are all things and by whom are all things, in bringing many sons to glory, to make the captain of their salvation perfect through sufferings." Hebrews 2:9&10

"Inasmuch then as the children have partaken of flesh and blood, He Himself likewise shared in the same . . .in all things He had to be made like His brethren that He might be a merciful and faithful High Pruiest in things pertaiing to God, to make propitiation for the sins of the people. For in that He Himself has suffered, being tempted, He is able to aid those who are tempted. . .For this One has been counted worthy of more glory . . .Christ as a Son over His own house." Hebrews 2:14a,17,18, 3:3a, 3:6a

This Hebrews passage is exemplary of the teaching AMR is sharing with us. Such passages reveal the wonders of the God/Man . . .The humility AND greatness of our Lord on full display!

Awesome truths to contemplate.

Nang

 

[chatmaggot]

It is important to remember that the Son of God, equal to the Father in glory and attributes, volitionally came into this world as flesh and blood like His elect children in the same limitations of flesh, in order that they might "have a High Priest," who could sympathize with their weaknesses.

How can an immutable God "came"? Doesn't "came" indicate a change?

If God wasn't always flesh, and then He was, isn't that a change?:think:

 

[CabinetMaker]

I probably should not weigh in . . .but I will

Just to point out CM, that you are not making any distinction between Father and Son in your argument.

The Father alone has authority over the times and seasons, and created beings are forbidden knowledge of these things. Jesus clearly taught the same thing to His disciples, when they asked Him again about His promised return, at the time of His ascension:

"And He said to them, 'It is not for you to know the times or seasons which the Father has put in His own authority.'" Acts 1:7

While discussing these passages with my husband, he reminded me that Jesus was born of flesh as a babe, and learned the things of God from His studies of the Holy Scriptures:

"And the child grew, and waxed strong in spirit, filled with wisdom: and the grace of God was upon him." Luke 2:40

"Now it was that after three days they found Him in the temple, sitting in the midst of the teachers, both listening to them and asking them questions. And all who heard Him were astonished at His understanding and answers. So when they saw Him, they were amazed; and His mother said to Him, 'Son, why have You done this to us? Look, Your father and I have sought You anxiously.' And He said to them, 'Why did you seek Me? Did you not know that I must be about My Father's business?' But they did not understand the statement which He spoke to them. . .And Jesus increased in wisdom and stature, and in favor with God and men." Luke 2:46-52

"Though he were a Son, yet learned He obedience by the things which he suffered." Hebrews 5:8

It is important to remember that the Son of God, equal to the Father in glory and attributes, volitionally came into this world as flesh and blood like His elect children in the same limitations of flesh, in order that they might "have a High Priest," who could sympathize with their weaknesses.

"We see Jesus, who was made a little lower than the angels, for the suffering of death, crowned with glory and honor, that He, by the grace of God, might taste death for everyone, for it was fitting for Him, for whom are all things and by whom are all things, in bringing many sons to glory, to make the captain of their salvation perfect through sufferings." Hebrews 2:9&10

"Inasmuch then as the children have partaken of flesh and blood, He Himself likewise shared in the same . . .in all things He had to be made like His brethren that He might be a merciful and faithful High Pruiest in things pertaiing to God, to make propitiation for the sins of the people. For in that He Himself has suffered, being tempted, He is able to aid those who are tempted. . .For this One has been counted worthy of more glory . . .Christ as a Son over His own house." Hebrews 2:14a,17,18, 3:3a, 3:6a

This Hebrews passage is exemplary of the teaching AMR is sharing with us. Such passages reveal the wonders of the God/Man . . .The humility AND greatness of our Lord on full display!

Awesome truths to contemplate.

Nang

Contrary to what you think, this post does not strengthen your case. Note what you said.

While discussing these passages with my husband, he reminded me that Jesus was born of flesh as a babe, and learned the things of God from His studies of the Holy Scriptures:

You are stating that Jesus was born without knowledge of the things of God. He learned these as He grew. Again, this violates AMR's statement (with which you seem to agree) the Jesus could not be separated from the knowledge of God because it is inseparable.

Also, please note that I started this discussion with AMR based on the statement by Jesus that the Son does not know all that the Father knows. There is a distinction. AMR's answer asserts that Jesus is fully God and therfore knows all that God knows. AMR draws no meaningful distinction between Father and Son. Scripture does. Specifically, Jesus points out that the Son does not know all that the Father knows. There is a distinction.

 

[CabinetMaker]

How can an immutable God "came"? Doesn't "came" indicate a change?

If God wasn't always flesh, and then He was, isn't that a change?:think:

Is it a change to die on the cross and rise from the dead three days later?

 

[Nang]

How can an immutable God "came"? Doesn't "came" indicate a change?

If God wasn't always flesh, and then He was, isn't that a change?:think:

AMR answered to this, here.

 

[Clete]

Cherish the word "antinomy?" Do a search . . .I don't believe I have ever used it or even reverted to admitting contradiction, or paradoxical mysteries in my posts. Secret, and restricted knowledge, yes, according to Deut. 29:29, but that is all.

I am not a Van Tillian, if that is what you are thinking. I prefer the more rational hermeneutic approach of Gordon Clark, et. al.

Gordon Clark did not discount antinomy in his theology and neither do you, whether you use the actually word itself or not. It is the concept that you must cherish for the Calvinistic worldview is clearly incoherent to anyone who rejects antinomy. The last several posts of this very thread is solid proof of that.

The Son of God come in the flesh to establish all righteousness through perfect obedience and submission to the will of the Father in order to qualify as Mediator between man and God, is irrelevant?

It's irrelevant to the point I was making, yes!

You've talked here about why God BECAME flesh and dwelt among us (somewhat inaccurately, by the way) but the why has nothing to do with the fact that the supposedly immutable God did in fact BECOME a man as well as go through countless other changes that the doctrine of immutability cannot survive unless one plays the antinomy card. The very gospel message itself refutes Calvinism at it very basis and the only response Calvinism has is to call it an antinomy, which renders the entire theological system unfalsifiable because anything that comes up that is incoherent is automatically deemed an antinomy. In fact, in the Calvinist mind, Calvinist theology that cannot be reconciled with the Bible is the very definition of the term antinomy!

Resting in Him,
Clete

 

[Clete]

Nang, AMR, or anyone else who calls themselves a Calvinst,

Did God die for you sins?

Resting in Him,
Clete

 

[Clete]

In AMR's latest "answer" he openly denies Divine Impassibility!

You want talk about picking and choosing your doctrines! Wow!

Impassibility is only Immutability applied to God's state of mind. If God is not impassibly He is not immutable and if God is not immutable Calvinism falls completely apart at the seams! The whole ball of wax is built up around the singular premise that God CANNOT change in any way shape fashion or form.

Way to go AMR! You just falsified your own theology on strictly rational grounds! :BRAVO:


Resting in Him,
Clete

 

[PKevman]

Is it a change to die on the cross and rise from the dead three days later?

Of course it is. Just as God the Father is not currently pouring His wrath out on God the Son. Just as God the Son is not CURRENTLY dying. Those are all major changes and things that had never happened before the cross and have not happened SINCE the cross!

 

[Nang]

Contrary to what you think, this post does not strengthen your case. Note what you said.



You are stating that Jesus was born without knowledge of the things of God. He learned these as He grew. Again, this violates AMR's statement (with which you seem to agree) the Jesus could not be separated from the knowledge of God because it is inseparable.

Not because the Son of God stopped being omniscient, but because He volitionally experienced a legitimate and full humanity. He chose to learn like we learn, and know God as we know God . . .through the revelation of God's Word. This caused no separation or divestiture of His attributes; this established Him as the God/Man possessing two natures; human and divine.

For example, the Son of God was not actively omnipresent while in the flesh, and yet He remained omnipresent by the powers of His deity. For did He not promise the thief on the cross, that He would be with Him in paradise the very day that He was laid dead in the tomb?

" And Jesus said unto him, Verily I say unto thee, Today shalt thou be with Me in paradise." Luke 23:43

Also, please note that I started this discussion with AMR based on the statement by Jesus that the Son does not know all that the Father knows. There is a distinction. AMR's answer asserts that Jesus is fully God and therfore knows all that God knows.

Jesus Christ is fully God and omniscient as the Father is omniscient.

You are refusing to acknowledge the covenanted purpose of Son's (perfect, sinless, lawful, and righteous) human nature.

In His humanity, Jesus Christ could not and would not usurp the commands and authority of the Father (like the first man Adam certainly did). He volitionally adopted human limitations under the Law, like His brethren made of flesh and blood (yet, without sin). Jesus Christ, in His divinity remained omniscient, but in His human nature did not choose to possess knowledge forbidden to His brethren. However, in the Matthew 24 passage, both natures of Christ are evident, for Jesus prophesied foreordained details of the last days, that only an omniscient God would know.

Just as, in His humanity, Jesus Christ remained omnipotent, and possessed the power to call angels down from heaven to prevent His crucifixion, but volitionally chose not to do so in order to accomplish the necessary (and preordained) will of the Father by dying on the cross for the salvation of His children.

"Or do you think that I cannot now pray to My Father and He will prove Me with more than twelve legions of angels? How then could the Scriptures be fulfilled, that it must happen thus?" Matthew 26:53&54

Jesus Christ did not exercise His omniscience, omnipresence, and omnipotence in order to do all that was humanly necessary to fulfill all righteousness on behalf of His people. It would have been unrighteous for Him, as a man, to possess the knowledge of the day and hour of His return.

But He did not divest Himself of His divine attributes at any time.

The human offices filled by Jesus Christ, are taught in the Westminster Confession of Faith, in Chapter VIII:

"I. It pleased God, in His eternal purpose, to choose and ordain the Lord Jesus, His only begotten Son, to be the Mediator between God and man, the Prophet, Priest, and King, the Head and Savior of His Church, the Heir of all things, and Judge of the world: unto whom He did from all eternity give a people, to be His seed, and to be by Him in time redeemed, called, justified, sanctified, and glorified.

II. The Son of God, the second person in the Trinity, being very and eternal God, of one substance and equal with the Father, did, when the fulness of time was come, take upon Him man's nature, with all the essential properties, and common infirmities, thereof, yet without sin; being conceived by the power of the Holy Ghost, in the womb of the virgin Mary, of her substance. So that two whole, perfect, and distinct natures, the Godhead and the manhood, were inseparably joined togetehr in one person, without conversion, composition, or confusion. Which person is very God, and very man, yet one Christ; the only Mediator between God and man.

III. The Lord Jesus, in His human nature thus united to the divine, was sanctified, and anointed with the Holy Spirit, above measure, having in Him all the treasures of wisdom and knowledge; in whom it pleased the Father that all fullness should dwell; to the end that, being holy, harmless, undefiled, and full of grace and truth, He might be thoroughly furnished to execute the office of a Mediator and Surety. Which office He took not unto Himself, but was thereunto called by His Father, who put all power and judgment into His hand, and gave Him commandment to execute the same.

IV. This office the Lord Jesus did most willingly undertake; which that He might discharge, He was made under the Law, and did perfectly fulfil it; endured most grievous torments immediately in is soul, and most painful sufferings in His body; was crucified, and died, was buried, and remained under the power of death, yet saw no corruption. On the third day He arose from the dead, with the same body in which He suffered, with which also He ascended into heaven, and there sitteth at the right hand of His Father, making intercession, and shall return, to judge men and angels, at the end of the world.

V. The Lord Jesus, by His perfect obedience, and sacrifice of Himself, which He through the eternal Spirit, once offered up unto God, hath fully satisfied the justice of His Father, and purchased, not only reconciliation, but an everlasting inheritance in the kingdom of heaven, for all those whom the Father hath given Him." (Emphasis, mine)

Jesus Christ, according to His human nature, functioned submissively under Godly command and creaturely restrictions of divine and eternal Law.

 

[Nang]

Of course it is. Just as God the Father is not currently pouring His wrath out on God the Son. Just as God the Son is not CURRENTLY dying. Those are all major changes and things that had never happened before the cross and have not happened SINCE the cross!

The Son of God is referred to as "the Lamb slain from the foundation of the world" (Rev. 13:8), and as He ". . .with His own blood entered the Most Holy Place once for all, having obtained eternal redemption . . .to cleanse your conscience from dead works to serve the living God" (Heb. 9:12-14) and as ". . He who judges and makes war . . .clothed with a robe dipped in blood . . ." (Rev. 19:11-13) and as the Lord who sits on the throne in heaven, and worshiped as the Lamb of God ". . .For You were slain, and have redeemed us to God by Your blood . . ." (Rev. 5:8-10)

So if the Christ was the Lamb slain before creation, and came as the sacrificial Lamb in the fulness of time by incarnation and crucifixion, and is now the Mediator through His own blood continually at the throne of grace in these present days, and who will come clothed in a robe dipped in blood to judge this world in the end times, and who will forever sit on the heavenly throne in His kingdom, being worshiped as the Lamb slain to redeem His people . . .where do you see any change, at any time, or in eternity, in the essence of the Son of God?

Nang

 

[CabinetMaker]

Not because the Son of God stopped being omniscient, but because He volitionally experienced a legitimate and full humanity. He chose to learn like we learn, and know God as we know God . . .through the revelation of God's Word. This caused no separation or divestiture of His attributes; this established Him as the God/Man possessing two natures; human and divine.

For example, the Son of God was not actively omnipresent while in the flesh, and yet He remained omnipresent by the powers of His deity. For did He not promise the thief on the cross, that He would be with Him in paradise the very day that He was laid dead in the tomb?

" And Jesus said unto him, Verily I say unto thee, Today shalt thou be with Me in paradise." Luke 23:43





Jesus Christ is fully God and omniscient as the Father is omniscient.

You are refusing to acknowledge the covenanted purpose of Son's (perfect, sinless, lawful, and righteous) human nature.

In His humanity, Jesus Christ could not and would not usurp the commands and authority of the Father (like the first man Adam certainly did). He volitionally adopted human limitations under the Law, like His brethren made of flesh and blood (yet, without sin). Jesus Christ, in His divinity remained omniscient, but in His human nature did not choose to possess knowledge forbidden to His brethren. However, in the Matthew 24 passage, both natures of Christ are evident, for Jesus prophesied foreordained details of the last days, that only an omniscient God would know.

Just as, in His humanity, Jesus Christ remained omnipotent, and possessed the power to call angels down from heaven to prevent His crucifixion, but volitionally chose not to do so in order to accomplish the necessary (and preordained) will of the Father by dying on the cross for the salvation of His children.

"Or do you think that I cannot now pray to My Father and He will prove Me with more than twelve legions of angels? How then could the Scriptures be fulfilled, that it must happen thus?" Matthew 26:53&54

Jesus Christ did not exercise His omniscience, omnipresence, and omnipotence in order to do all that was humanly necessary to fulfill all righteousness on behalf of His people. It would have been unrighteous for Him, as a man, to possess the knowledge of the day and hour of His return.

But He did not divest Himself of His divine attributes at any time.

Okay. Based on what you have said, my understanding of what you believe is that Jesus is of two natures and He separates those natures whenever it is required that the two natures be separate as in the verse from Matthew. I do not share your view.

The human offices filled by Jesus Christ, are taught in the Westminster Confession of Faith, in Chapter VIII:

"I. It pleased God, in His eternal purpose, to choose and ordain the Lord Jesus, His only begotten Son, to be the Mediator between God and man, the Prophet, Priest, and King, the Head and Savior of His Church, the Heir of all things, and Judge of the world: unto whom He did from all eternity give a people, to be His seed, and to be by Him in time redeemed, called, justified, sanctified, and glorified.

II. The Son of God, the second person in the Trinity, being very and eternal God, of one substance and equal with the Father, did, when the fulness of time was come, take upon Him man's nature, with all the essential properties, and common infirmities, thereof, yet without sin; being conceived by the power of the Holy Ghost, in the womb of the virgin Mary, of her substance. So that two whole, perfect, and distinct natures, the Godhead and the manhood, were inseparably joined togetehr in one person, without conversion, composition, or confusion. Which person is very God, and very man, yet one Christ; the only Mediator between God and man.

III. The Lord Jesus, in His human nature thus united to the divine, was sanctified, and anointed with the Holy Spirit, above measure, having in Him all the treasures of wisdom and knowledge; in whom it pleased the Father that all fullness should dwell; to the end that, being holy, harmless, undefiled, and full of grace and truth, He might be thoroughly furnished to execute the office of a Mediator and Surety. Which office He took not unto Himself, but was thereunto called by His Father, who put all power and judgment into His hand, and gave Him commandment to execute the same.

IV. This office the Lord Jesus did most willingly undertake; which that He might discharge, He was made under the Law, and did perfectly fulfil it; endured most grievous torments immediately in is soul, and most painful sufferings in His body; was crucified, and died, was buried, and remained under the power of death, yet saw no corruption. On the third day He arose from the dead, with the same body in which He suffered, with which also He ascended into heaven, and there sitteth at the right hand of His Father, making intercession, and shall return, to judge men and angels, at the end of the world.

V. The Lord Jesus, by His perfect obedience, and sacrifice of Himself, which He through the eternal Spirit, once offered up unto God, hath fully satisfied the justice of His Father, and purchased, not only reconciliation, but an everlasting inheritance in the kingdom of heaven, for all those whom the Father hath given Him." (Emphasis, mine)

Jesus Christ, according to His human nature, functioned submissively under Godly command and creaturely restrictions of divine and eternal Law.

It is a waste of time to quote the WCF as an authoritative and doctrinal source. I have read it several times and I find it to be at odds with the scriptures and full of contradictory statements. I reject the WCF as a statement of my faith.

 

[Nang]

Okay. Based on what you have said, my understanding of what you believe is that Jesus is of two natures

No . . .it is my belief that Jesus Christ possesses both a divine and a human nature that makes up His essence as the Son of God.

and He separates those natures whenever it is required that the two natures be separate as in the verse from Matthew.

The natures of Jesus Christ belong to His Person, and are inseparable, although functionally distinct.

I do not share your view.

You evidence you do not grasp my view.

It is a waste of time to quote the WCF as an authoritative and doctrinal source. I have read it several times and I find it to be at odds with the scriptures and full of contradictory statements. I reject the WCF as a statement of my faith.

Well, this is why you do not grasp or agree with my view.

Nang

BTW, anyone who does not have resource to the WCF, may receive the Bible references for the portions I quoted, upon request.

 

[CabinetMaker]

No . . .it is my belief that Jesus Christ possesses both a divine and a human nature that makes up His essence as the Son of God.





The natures of Jesus Christ belong to His Person, and are inseparable, although functionally distinct.




You evidence you do not grasp my view.

Nang,
You say there are two natures, insuperable but distinct. So lets go back to where this started.
Matthew 24:36 (New International Version)

The Day and Hour Unknown

36"No one knows about that day or hour, not even the angels in heaven, nor the Son,[a] but only the Father.

Here you are faced with a verse where Jesus is speaking. Jesus draws a distinction between Himself and His Father. He states that the Son does not know everything the Father knows. So Jesus's two separate but distinct natures must also be separate and distinct from the nature of the Father.

Again, it is a teaching by Jesus the contradicts AMR's assertion that God cannot divide Himself. This verse makes it rather obvious that God can and does divide Himself.

Well, this is why you do not grasp or agree with my view.

Nang

BTW, anyone who does not have resource to the WCF, may receive the Bible references for the portions I quoted, upon request.

It is also why you cannot grasp or agree with any view other than yours. I would hazard that you don't consider anybody who doesn't share your view to be a Christian.

 

[Nang]

Nang,
You say there are two natures, insuperable but distinct. So lets go back to where this started.
Matthew 24:36 (New International Version)

The Day and Hour Unknown

36"No one knows about that day or hour, not even the angels in heaven, nor the Son,[a] but only the Father.

Here you are faced with a verse where Jesus is speaking. Jesus draws a distinction between Himself and His Father. He states that the Son does not know everything the Father knows. So Jesus's two separate but distinct natures must also be separate and distinct from the nature of the Father.

Jesus' divine nature is of the same substance as the divine nature of the Father.

Again, it is a teaching by Jesus the contradicts AMR's assertion that God cannot divide Himself. This verse makes it rather obvious that God can and does divide Himself.

Matthew 24:36 teaches a division in the Godhead?!!!

Well, you are going to have to explain this supposed "divisionary" view, as you understand it, since it obviously comes only from your brain . . . it is not what AMR or what the WCF teaches.

Nang

 

[CabinetMaker]

Jesus' divine nature is of the same substance as the divine nature of the Father.



Matthew 24:36 teaches a division in the Godhead?!!!

Well, you are going to have to explain this supposed "divisionary" view, as you understand it, since it obviously comes only from your brain . . . it is not what AMR or what the WCF teaches.

Nang

Nang, can you please address the verse? Just the verse. What is Jesus saying. Why did He say it? What does it mean?

 

[Nang]

Nang, can you please address the verse? Just the verse. What is Jesus saying. Why did He say it? What does it mean?

I have been addressing the verse, for pity sake . . .

You are the one now saying Matt. 24:36 teaches "division" within the Godhead, so the onus is upon you to explain yourself.

 

[CabinetMaker]

Nang, can you please address the verse? Just the verse. What is Jesus saying? Why did He say it? What does it mean?

I have been addressing the verse, for pity sake . . .

You are the one now saying Matt. 24:36 teaches "division" within the Godhead, so the onus is upon you to explain yourself.

You have talked around it but you have not addressed it. Please, start by answering the three questions above.

 

[Nang]

You have talked around it but you have not addressed it. Please, start by answering the three questions above.

:ha: