Engaged Perfection: : The Relational Nature of God

[Clete]

I've been doing some reading and studying lately. Much of which is in response to some rather wacky arguments that I've been confronted with concerning the issue of divine immutability. I had someone actually attempt to argument that the doctrine of divine immutability logically required the belief that God changes in some ways; that divine immutability implies divine mutability. That argument, as presented, was just as weird as that makes it sound. It was presented as a kind of paradoxical antinomy where the idea that God changes doesn't disprove immutability but supports is and even proves it.

I had never experienced such an argument and insisted that the person presenting it was lying and just making it up. I was subsequently banned from the site for doing so (of course) but it prompted me to do some research into the idea to see whether there was some obscure school of thought that actually did teach such a thing. I could find no evidence that such a goofy doctrine is actually a real thing and so, as per usual, the liar gets to continue participating on a Christian forum while the guy calling the liar out for telling lies is removed. Just so pathetically typical!

At any rate, there is a silver lining. My research has spawned the following essay. I've got some other stuff that attempts to establish the fact that the doctrines taught by Augustine and then also Luther and Calvin are totally dependent on an absolute divine immutability, so called "ontological immutability", which includes such concepts as God's existence outside of time and other related concepts, but for those on this forum, it seems like it's not really necessary to do all that and so I wrote the following instead.


The Nature of Divine Changeability
The traditional doctrine asserting that God is wholly immutable and simple—a being devoid of parts and unchanging—is widely upheld within classical metaphysics, particularly in the thought of Augustine and the Neoplatonic and Aristotelian traditions. However, this perspective deserves reconsideration in light of key events in Christian theology, particularly the incarnation of Christ, His death and resurrection, and His acquisition of a glorified body. These events illustrate that God is not ontologically immutable; rather, they point to a God who actively engages with creation, experiences change, and transforms in meaningful ways.

The Incarnation as Divine Engagement
The doctrine of the incarnation posits that God took on human form in the person of Jesus Christ. This event signifies a profound change in the divine nature. By entering into humanity, God assumed a physical body and experienced human limitations, emotions, not to mention a decidedly temporal existence. This radical transformation challenges the notion of divine immutability. If God can embody human nature and enter into history, He demonstrates a willingness to adapt and engage with creation in a new and dynamic way.

Argument:

• The incarnation reflects a genuine change in God’s relationship with creation.
• By becoming human, God experiences life as we do, indicating that He is not confined to a static existence.
• Therefore, the incarnation suggests that God is ontologically mutable.

Death and Resurrection as Transformative Events
Similarly, the death and resurrection of Christ present a clear instance of divine change. In the act of dying, God experiences the ultimate human condition—death—resulting in a genuine transformation. The resurrection marks not only a return to life but an elevation to a new state of being, where Christ acquires a glorified body. This is not mere symbolic change; it signifies a real, transformative process in the divine existence.

Argument:

• The death of Christ is a profound alteration of God’s experience, demonstrating that He can undergo the deepest aspects of human reality.
• The resurrection represents a significant change, elevating Christ to a new, glorified existence that is not static.
• Therefore, these events support the idea that God is not immutable but rather responsive to the unfolding narrative of creation.

The Acquisition of a Glorified Body
The concept of Christ acquiring a glorified body further illustrates the dynamic nature of the divine. After His resurrection, Christ’s glorified state signifies a change in His being, where He now exists in a form that is transcendent yet still retains His humanity. This event reveals that divine nature is capable of change while still maintaining the core identity of the divine.

Argument:

• The glorified body of Christ is a tangible representation of change within the divine nature, indicating that God is not bound by the constraints of immutability.
• This acquisition of a glorified body suggests that God’s essence allows for transformation and development in relation to creation.
• Therefore, the traditional view of God as wholly immutable fails to account for these significant changes.

Divine Change and Relationship
The relational aspect of God’s engagement with creation further supports the argument for divine changeability. God’s interactions with humanity throughout history—including the covenantal and/or dispensational relationships depicted in Scripture—demonstrate a God who is responsive and adaptive. These interactions indicate that God’s nature is not static; rather, it is characterized by a dynamic interplay with creation that allows for genuine change.

Argument:

• A God who engages in a dynamic relationship with creation cannot be wholly immutable, as such engagement implies responsiveness and adaptation.
• Change in response to human actions and prayers suggests a God who is relational and involved in the unfolding narrative of existence.
• Therefore, the relational aspect of God challenges the traditional notions of divine immutability and simplicity.

The Redefinition of Perfection
Finally, the understanding of perfection must be reexamined in light of divine changeability. Traditional philosophy often equates perfection with wholeness and immutability; however, it is plausible to argue that a perfect being can also be one who actively engages with the world and undergoes change in meaningful ways. This perspective reframes perfection as not merely static completeness but as the capacity to relate, transform, and fulfill the dynamic needs of creation.

Argument:

• If God can change and still maintain His essence, then perfection can include the ability to adapt and engage with creation.
• The events of the incarnation, death, and resurrection illustrate a dynamic perfection that embraces the fullness of human experience.
• Therefore, redefining perfection allows for a God who is not bound by immutability but is fully engaged with the unfolding story of creation.

Conclusion: Reconsidering Divine Changeability and Its Implications for Key Doctrines

Upon examining the nature of God in light of the incarnation, death, resurrection, and the glorified body of Christ, we must confront the profound reality that God is not ontologically immutable. The implications of this assertion reverberate through numerous doctrines that shape our understanding of the divine.

Divine Simplicity Reconsidered
If God is capable of genuine change, the doctrine of divine simplicity—the idea that God is without parts, wholly unchangeable, and self-sufficient—becomes untenable. For God to have taken on human form, suffered, and undergone transformation suggests that the divine essence can embrace relational dynamics and real experiences. Thus, the doctrine of divine simplicity obscures the richness of God’s engagement with creation and the complexity inherent in His nature.

Predestination and Sovereignty
The concept of divine sovereignty, intertwined with predestination and exhaustive foreknowledge, also comes into question. If God is actively involved in the unfolding narrative of creation and responds to human actions, the static, predetermined notions of predestination fails to capture the reality of a relational God. Instead, we must consider a model where divine sovereignty accommodates human freedom and genuine interaction, suggesting that God’s foreknowledge is not simply a matter of observing a predetermined script but is dynamically engaged in the process of creation and in His relationships with and within that creation.

Relational Dynamics in Theology (Impassibility)
The changeable nature of God invites a reevaluation of how we approach the relational dynamics of divine theology. If God is involved in the lives of His creation, His interactions can reflect genuine emotional engagement and response. This relational understanding provides a richer perspective on prayer, worship, and divine action in the world, emphasizing that God’s nature is not static but loving and responsive and actively involved in the human experience.

Perfection as Engagement
Finally, the notion of perfection must evolve from Plato's static completeness to a definition that embraces dynamic engagement with creation. A perfect God is one who not only embodies the fullness of existence but also interacts with His creation in meaningful ways. This challenges the traditional understanding of perfection as immutable oneness, opening the door to a more profound appreciation of divine love, mercy, responsiveness and relationship.

​

Exodus 33:11a So the Lord spoke to Moses face to face, as a man speaks to his friend.​

​

2 Chronicles 20:7 Are You not our God, who drove out the inhabitants of this land before Your people Israel, and gave it to the descendants of Abraham Your friend forever?​

​

Isaiah 41:8 “But you, Israel, are My servant,​

Jacob whom I have chosen,​

The descendants of Abraham My friend​

​

John 15:15 No longer do I call you servants, for a servant does not know what his master is doing; but I have called you friends, for all things that I heard from My Father I have made known to you.​

Clete
(9/30/2024)
(While the above content was authored by me, ChatGPT was used to edit it. Minor changes in grammar and the specific format in which it is presented is all that was altered.)

 

[Derf]

I've been doing some reading and studying lately. Much of which is in response to some rather wacky arguments that I've been confronted with concerning the issue of divine immutability. I had someone actually attempt to argument that the doctrine of divine immutability logically required the belief that God changes in some ways; that divine immutability implies divine mutability. That argument, as presented, was just as weird as that makes it sound. It was presented as a kind of paradoxical antinomy where the idea that God changes doesn't disprove immutability but supports is and even proves it.

I had never experienced such an argument and insisted that the person presenting it was lying and just making it up. I was subsequently banned from the site for doing so (of course) but it prompted me to do some research into the idea to see whether there was some obscure school of thought that actually did teach such a thing. I could find no evidence that such a goofy doctrine is actually a real thing and so, as per usual, the liar gets to continue participating on a Christian forum while the guy calling the liar out for telling lies is removed. Just so pathetically typical!

At any rate, there is a silver lining. My research has spawned the following essay. I've got some other stuff that attempts to establish the fact that the doctrines taught by Augustine and then also Luther and Calvin are totally dependent on an absolute divine immutability, so called "ontological immutability", which includes such concepts as God's existence outside of time and other related concepts, but for those on this forum, it seems like it's not really necessary to do all that and so I wrote the following instead.


The Nature of Divine Changeability
The traditional doctrine asserting that God is wholly immutable and simple—a being devoid of parts and unchanging—is widely upheld within classical metaphysics, particularly in the thought of Augustine and the Neoplatonic and Aristotelian traditions. However, this perspective deserves reconsideration in light of key events in Christian theology, particularly the incarnation of Christ, His death and resurrection, and His acquisition of a glorified body. These events illustrate that God is not ontologically immutable; rather, they point to a God who actively engages with creation, experiences change, and transforms in meaningful ways.

The Incarnation as Divine Engagement
The doctrine of the incarnation posits that God took on human form in the person of Jesus Christ. This event signifies a profound change in the divine nature. By entering into humanity, God assumed a physical body and experienced human limitations, emotions, not to mention a decidedly temporal existence. This radical transformation challenges the notion of divine immutability. If God can embody human nature and enter into history, He demonstrates a willingness to adapt and engage with creation in a new and dynamic way.

Argument:

• The incarnation reflects a genuine change in God’s relationship with creation.
• By becoming human, God experiences life as we do, indicating that He is not confined to a static existence.
• Therefore, the incarnation suggests that God is ontologically mutable.

Death and Resurrection as Transformative Events
Similarly, the death and resurrection of Christ present a clear instance of divine change. In the act of dying, God experiences the ultimate human condition—death—resulting in a genuine transformation. The resurrection marks not only a return to life but an elevation to a new state of being, where Christ acquires a glorified body. This is not mere symbolic change; it signifies a real, transformative process in the divine existence.

Argument:

• The death of Christ is a profound alteration of God’s experience, demonstrating that He can undergo the deepest aspects of human reality.
• The resurrection represents a significant change, elevating Christ to a new, glorified existence that is not static.
• Therefore, these events support the idea that God is not immutable but rather responsive to the unfolding narrative of creation.

The Acquisition of a Glorified Body
The concept of Christ acquiring a glorified body further illustrates the dynamic nature of the divine. After His resurrection, Christ’s glorified state signifies a change in His being, where He now exists in a form that is transcendent yet still retains His humanity. This event reveals that divine nature is capable of change while still maintaining the core identity of the divine.

Argument:

• The glorified body of Christ is a tangible representation of change within the divine nature, indicating that God is not bound by the constraints of immutability.
• This acquisition of a glorified body suggests that God’s essence allows for transformation and development in relation to creation.
• Therefore, the traditional view of God as wholly immutable fails to account for these significant changes.

Divine Change and Relationship
The relational aspect of God’s engagement with creation further supports the argument for divine changeability. God’s interactions with humanity throughout history—including the covenantal and/or dispensational relationships depicted in Scripture—demonstrate a God who is responsive and adaptive. These interactions indicate that God’s nature is not static; rather, it is characterized by a dynamic interplay with creation that allows for genuine change.

Argument:

• A God who engages in a dynamic relationship with creation cannot be wholly immutable, as such engagement implies responsiveness and adaptation.
• Change in response to human actions and prayers suggests a God who is relational and involved in the unfolding narrative of existence.
• Therefore, the relational aspect of God challenges the traditional notions of divine immutability and simplicity.

The Redefinition of Perfection
Finally, the understanding of perfection must be reexamined in light of divine changeability. Traditional philosophy often equates perfection with wholeness and immutability; however, it is plausible to argue that a perfect being can also be one who actively engages with the world and undergoes change in meaningful ways. This perspective reframes perfection as not merely static completeness but as the capacity to relate, transform, and fulfill the dynamic needs of creation.

Argument:

• If God can change and still maintain His essence, then perfection can include the ability to adapt and engage with creation.
• The events of the incarnation, death, and resurrection illustrate a dynamic perfection that embraces the fullness of human experience.
• Therefore, redefining perfection allows for a God who is not bound by immutability but is fully engaged with the unfolding story of creation.

Conclusion: Reconsidering Divine Changeability and Its Implications for Key Doctrines

Upon examining the nature of God in light of the incarnation, death, resurrection, and the glorified body of Christ, we must confront the profound reality that God is not ontologically immutable. The implications of this assertion reverberate through numerous doctrines that shape our understanding of the divine.

Divine Simplicity Reconsidered
If God is capable of genuine change, the doctrine of divine simplicity—the idea that God is without parts, wholly unchangeable, and self-sufficient—becomes untenable. For God to have taken on human form, suffered, and undergone transformation suggests that the divine essence can embrace relational dynamics and real experiences. Thus, the doctrine of divine simplicity obscures the richness of God’s engagement with creation and the complexity inherent in His nature.

Predestination and Sovereignty
The concept of divine sovereignty, intertwined with predestination and exhaustive foreknowledge, also comes into question. If God is actively involved in the unfolding narrative of creation and responds to human actions, the static, predetermined notions of predestination fails to capture the reality of a relational God. Instead, we must consider a model where divine sovereignty accommodates human freedom and genuine interaction, suggesting that God’s foreknowledge is not simply a matter of observing a predetermined script but is dynamically engaged in the process of creation and in His relationships with and within that creation.

Relational Dynamics in Theology (Impassibility)
The changeable nature of God invites a reevaluation of how we approach the relational dynamics of divine theology. If God is involved in the lives of His creation, His interactions can reflect genuine emotional engagement and response. This relational understanding provides a richer perspective on prayer, worship, and divine action in the world, emphasizing that God’s nature is not static but loving and responsive and actively involved in the human experience.

Perfection as Engagement
Finally, the notion of perfection must evolve from Plato's static completeness to a definition that embraces dynamic engagement with creation. A perfect God is one who not only embodies the fullness of existence but also interacts with His creation in meaningful ways. This challenges the traditional understanding of perfection as immutable oneness, opening the door to a more profound appreciation of divine love, mercy, responsiveness and relationship.

​

Exodus 33:11a So the Lord spoke to Moses face to face, as a man speaks to his friend.​

​

2 Chronicles 20:7 Are You not our God, who drove out the inhabitants of this land before Your people Israel, and gave it to the descendants of Abraham Your friend forever?​

​

Isaiah 41:8 “But you, Israel, are My servant,​

Jacob whom I have chosen,​

The descendants of Abraham My friend​

​

John 15:15 No longer do I call you servants, for a servant does not know what his master is doing; but I have called you friends, for all things that I heard from My Father I have made known to you.​

Clete
(9/30/2024)
(While the above content was authored by me, ChatGPT was used to edit it. Minor changes in grammar and the specific format in which it is presented is all that was altered.)

Good article, Clete. I have a question. Why do you feel that a glorified body is of more consequence than a mortal body? It seems His glorification was a partial changing back to what He was before His incarnation. In that sense, I feel like His incarnation to a mortal body was the bigger change away from His previous state/condition.

 

[Idolater]

Sometimes Aristotelian categories or predicaments help to clarify disputes like this. A substance or a nature is what a subject is (I mean a subject in the sense that a sentence is a subject plus a predicate), so God is God, He is His substance or nature, and Jesus is God, so He has always been God, that is eternally His nature. So when He was conceived by the Holy Spirit in the virgin's womb, the interesting change is that now He is human, which is our nature. But He certainly is incapable of ever not being God, no matter what else. So ... two natures. Seems like no problem in a way, but I think this needs to be thought through a little, because are there other subjects with two or more natures?

If there are no other subjects with multiple natures then we need to be careful what conclusions and inferences we draw from Christ "having" two natures. If He is a "one-off" then we can't really read too much into whatever that might imply all other things being equal, which they are surely not–if and only if there is no other subject with multiple natures.

I mean, just for starters a Swiss Army knife is a Swiss Army knife, it's not by nature a knife or a corkscrew or a file.

 

[Derf]

Sometimes Aristotelian categories or predicaments help to clarify disputes like this. A substance or a nature is what a subject is (I mean a subject in the sense that a sentence is a subject plus a predicate), so God is God, He is His substance or nature, and Jesus is God, so He has always been God, that is eternally His nature. So when He was conceived by the Holy Spirit in the virgin's womb, the interesting change is that now He is human, which is our nature. But He certainly is incapable of ever not being God, no matter what else. So ... two natures. Seems like no problem in a way, but I think this needs to be thought through a little, because are there other subjects with two or more natures?

If there are no other subjects with multiple natures then we need to be careful what conclusions and inferences we draw from Christ "having" two natures. If He is a "one-off" then we can't really read too much into whatever that might imply all other things being equal, which they are surely not–if and only if there is no other subject with multiple natures.

I mean, just for starters a Swiss Army knife is a Swiss Army knife, it's not by nature a knife or a corkscrew or a file.

Christians have a new nature (spirit) and an old nature (flesh). We are assured that the old is passed away, and we are new creatures, yet something of the old remains to be dwelt with, as we all recognize. Our natures are in conflict, as Paul tells us in Rom 7, but Jesus's natures were not, were they? Can a person be both mortal (able to die) and immortal (not able to die)?

 

[Clete]

Good article, Clete. I have a question. Why do you feel that a glorified body is of more consequence than a mortal body? It seems His glorification was a partial changing back to what He was before His incarnation. In that sense, I feel like His incarnation to a mortal body was the bigger change away from His previous state/condition.

I was not making any attempt to rank the "bigness", if you'll allow the term, of one change over another.

Whenever I discuss the issue of God changing in various ways, I try to focus on the incarnation, suffering and resurrection of Christ because there is no one who can call themselves a Christian and deny that those events occurred. Not that I avoid discussing the various times when God changed His mind but only that it's easier for Calvinists and other Augustinians to deny that any such change actually happened and in so doing to muddy the water.

I'm curious; what portion of my remarks led you to think that I was suggesting that Christ's glorified body amounted to a more significant change than the incarnation itself? Perhaps I need to edit something.

If I were to rank them, I'd have to place the death of God the Son as the single most colossal, most indescribable, most incomprehensible change that any being could possibly undergo. How deep, unbounded and infinite is the love God has shown toward us! Gives me the chills to think about it!

 

[Clete]

Sometimes Aristotelian categories or predicaments help to clarify disputes like this. A substance or a nature is what a subject is (I mean a subject in the sense that a sentence is a subject plus a predicate), so God is God, He is His substance or nature, and Jesus is God, so He has always been God, that is eternally His nature. So when He was conceived by the Holy Spirit in the virgin's womb, the interesting change is that now He is human, which is our nature. But He certainly is incapable of ever not being God, no matter what else. So ... two natures. Seems like no problem in a way, but I think this needs to be thought through a little, because are there other subjects with two or more natures?

It is not two natures!

I keep coming across people who say this but they never seem to actually think it through. Jesus is NOT two people. He is ONE person. There was a time before He became a human being but when He became a human, that change was a real change. It was not some sort of costume that God was/is wearing. Jesus IS a divine human being and He will remain so from now on. That's one thing, not two.

If there are no other subjects with multiple natures then we need to be careful what conclusions and inferences we draw from Christ "having" two natures.

Well, rejecting the notion that He has two natures solves all such problems.

If He is a "one-off" then we can't really read too much into whatever that might imply all other things being equal, which they are surely not–if and only if there is no other subject with multiple natures.

This sentence makes no sense.

Have you ever noticed how this sort of intellectual pretzel is most easily tied in reaction to a false premise?

I mean, just for starters a Swiss Army knife is a Swiss Army knife, it's not by nature a knife or a corkscrew or a file.

It is, however, a Swiss Army Knife! It is not more than one thing. It has lots of parts for lots of different reasons but it remains a single object, the nature of which is defined, in part, by the fact that is has many varied tools incorporated into its construction.

 

[Clete]

Christians have a new nature (spirit) and an old nature (flesh).

We are to "recon" this to be true, by faith.

We are assured that the old is passed away, and we are new creatures, yet something of the old remains to be dwelt with, as we all recognize.

The former is true of us positionally and we are to live by this spiritual truth by faith. The later is the reality that we are currently dealing with while we wait for the fulfillment of our hope which is Christ. If this were not the case then no faith would be needed.

Romans 8:24 For we were saved in this hope, but hope that is seen is not hope; for why does one still hope for what he sees?​

Our natures are in conflict, as Paul tells us in Rom 7,

Indeed, the battle we wage is in the mind.

Romans 7:14 For we know that the law is spiritual, but I am carnal, sold under sin. 15 For what I am doing, I do not understand. For what I will to do, that I do not practice; but what I hate, that I do. 16 If, then, I do what I will not to do, I agree with the law that it is good. 17 But now, it is no longer I who do it, but sin that dwells in me. 18 For I know that in me (that is, in my flesh) nothing good dwells; for to will is present with me, but how to perform what is good I do not find. 19 For the good that I will to do, I do not do; but the evil I will not to do, that I practice. 20 Now if I do what I will not to do, it is no longer I who do it, but sin that dwells in me.​

​

21 I find then a law, that evil is present with me, the one who wills to do good. 22 For I delight in the law of God according to the inward man. 23 But I see another law in my members, warring against the law of my mind, and bringing me into captivity to the law of sin which is in my members. 24 O wretched man that I am! Who will deliver me from this body of death? 25 I thank God—through Jesus Christ our Lord!​

​

So then, with the mind I myself serve the law of God, but with the flesh the law of sin.​

This is Paul speaking as though he really does believe that, even though he stills draws breath, he is no longer alive....

Galatians 2: 19 For I through the law died to the law that I might live to God. 20 I have been crucified with Christ; it is no longer I who live, but Christ lives in me; and the life which I now live in the flesh I live by faith in the Son of God, who loved me and gave Himself for me.​

but Jesus's natures were not, were they? Can a person be both mortal (able to die) and immortal (not able to die)?

Jesus DID NOT, nor does He now, have two natures. The immortal Creator became a mortal man and then He died. When He rose from the dead, He rose with a brand new glorified, and yes immortal, physical body that He retains to this day and forever more.

"I am the First and the Last. I am He who lives, and was dead, and behold, I am alive forevermore. Amen." - Jesus (Rev. 1:17-18)​

The point there being that these things are part and parcel of who and what Jesus is. Jesus is the God who died and rose from the dead. He isn't some sort of bifurcated being as is implied by so many Augustinian theologians.

 

[Right Divider]

It is not two natures!

I keep coming across people who say this but they never seem to actually think it through. Jesus is NOT two people. He is ONE person. There was a time before He became a human being but when He became a human, that change was a real change. It was not some sort of costume that God was/is wearing. Jesus IS a divine human being and He will remain so from now on. That's one thing, not two.

One person... two natures.

Jesus had a divine nature prior to the incarnation.
Jesus took on a new human nature (that He did not previously have before) at the incarnation.

Is a divine nature identical to a human nature? No.

Does Jesus have both a divine nature and human nature? Yes.

One person... two natures.

 

[Derf]

One person... two natures.

Jesus had a divine nature prior to the incarnation.
Jesus took on a new human nature (that He did not previously have before) at the incarnation.

Is a divine nature identical to a human nature? No.

Does Jesus have both a divine nature and human nature? Yes.

One person... two natures.

Can you list the attributes of each nature and see if he had both?
Divine: immortal
Human: mortal
Divine: all powerful
Human: weak and subject to corruption
Etc.
Can a person be both at the same time?

 

[Right Divider]

Can you list the attributes of each nature and see if he had both?
Divine: immortal
Human: mortal

Jesus (as a man) was mortal... that is how He was able to die for my sins.

Mortality is a temporary aspect of human "nature". Resurrection removes that attribute.

Divine: all powerful
Human: weak and subject to corruption

You are incorrect. There was one man that had a human nature that was not "weak and subject to corruption".

Can a person be both at the same time?

Are you saying that Jesus was never a human?

Do you consider yourself to be a Christian?

 

[Clete]

One person... two natures.

Jesus had a divine nature prior to the incarnation.
Jesus took on a new human nature (that He did not previously have before) at the incarnation.

Is a divine nature identical to a human nature? No.

Does Jesus have both a divine nature and human nature? Yes.

One person... two natures.

It may be a semantic difference but I think it an important one.

God's divine nature was not overlaid with a separate human nature but He, while remaining divine, CHANGED into a human being. He became flesh. Not fallen flesh, but flesh nonetheless. He was a divine human. He is a divine human. He is ONE person, not two. He is a person who's nature is divinely human or humanly divine. Whichever way you want to say it. It's just two aspects of the same complete nature, each complimenting the other.

You don't suggest that because the sun is both round and hot and it has two natures, do you? Of course not.

 

[Clete]

Can you list the attributes of each nature and see if he had both?
Divine: immortal
Human: mortal
Divine: all powerful
Human: weak and subject to corruption
Etc.
Can a person be both at the same time?

If Jesus was not both, we are all fools and Christianity is false.

If you do not believe that Jesus was both, you will die in your sin.

 

[Right Divider]

It may be a semantic difference but I think it an important one.

God's divine nature was not overlaid with a separate human nature but He, while remaining divine, CHANGED into a human being. He became flesh. Not fallen flesh, but flesh nonetheless. He was a divine human. He is a divine human. He is ONE person, not two.

I don't know of anyone that has claimed that Jesus is two persons. Perhaps you'd like to quote someone?

He is a person who's nature is divinely human or humanly divine. Whichever way you want to say it. It's just two aspects of the same complete nature, each complimenting the other.

In both of your example cases... you identify TWO natures.

You don't suggest that because the sun is both round and hot and it has two natures, do you? Of course not.

Those are two attributes of one nature. Fallacious example.

The divine nature and the human nature have some mutually exclusive attributes. Don't you think?

Do you disagree with Bob Enyart when he says that Jesus took upon Himself a second nature?

 

[Clete]

There was one man that had a human nature that was not "weak and subject to corruption".

Two.

The first Adam and the last Adam.

The first started "very good" but became weak and corrupted because sin overcame him and killed him.
The last was never weak nor subject to corruption and defeated both sin and death.

 

[Right Divider]

Two.

The first Adam and the last Adam.

The first started "very good" but became weak and corrupted because sin overcame him and killed him.
The last was never weak nor subject to corruption and defeated both sin and death.

Adam may have been created that way, but Jesus was and is always that way. That was my point.

 

[Clete]

I don't know of anyone that has claimed that Jesus is two persons. Perhaps you'd like to quote someone?

No one would be stupid enough to say it but that isn't the point. It is what this idea implies. A singular person has a singular nature. A person's nature is the person. You are what you are. God is what God is. Jesus is what Jesus is. Jesus isn't two bifurcated things, He's one unified thing. He is God become flesh.

In both of your example cases... you identify TWO natures.

I do not.

Those are two attributes of one nature.

Precisely!

Fallacious example.

Saying it doesn't make it so!

The divine nature and the human nature have some mutually exclusive attributes. Don't you think?

Not at all. Just what is it that you think is so mutually exclusive about God becoming a human being?

Do you disagree with Bob Enyart when he says that Jesus took upon Himself a second nature?

No, I do not.

I grant the use of the vernacular as sort of a figure of speech but not as any sort of technically accurate statement. God the Son's nature changed from being entirely Spiritual to being flesh and not just any flesh, human flesh. He was still God the Son and He still has a Spirit but now, rather than being what He had been for an eternity of time prior, He is a human man. In other words, that change was real, fundamental and permanent. Jesus was what He was and now He is something different, something more, and He will remain that different thing forever more. He isn't two things, He's one new thing.

 

[Clete]

Adam may have been created that way, but Jesus was and is always that way. That was my point.

Yes. I didn't expect that you would disagree with my comment. I was just being technical and precise.

 

[Derf]

Jesus (as a man) was mortal... that is how He was able to die for my sins.

Agreed

Mortality is a temporary aspect of human "nature". Resurrection removes that attribute.

Agreed, but that cements my point, that He was at one time mortal, despite being immortal at the same time.

You are incorrect. There was one man that had a human nature that was not "weak and subject to corruption".

Acts 13:34 KJV — And as concerning that he raised him up from the dead, now no more to return to corruption, he said on this wise, I will give you the sure mercies of David.
Can "never return to corruption" mean anything if He was never subject to corruption?
2 Corinthians 13:4 NKJV — For though He was crucified in weakness, yet He lives by the power of God. For we also are weak in Him, but we shall live with Him by the power of God toward you.
Could He be crucified in weakness if He was never weak?

Are you saying that Jesus was never a human?

No, I'm saying that there's a conflict between His divine and His human natures, at least before His resurrection.

Do you consider yourself to be a Christian?

Do you consider yourself to be a Christian? Are you suggesting that anyone who seeks to understand the trinity isn't a Christian?

 

[Right Divider]

No, I'm saying that there's a conflict between His divine and His human natures, at least before His resurrection.

No conflict... simply a distinction.

 

[Derf]

No conflict... simply a distinction.

A distinction suggests the two are compatible, i.e., not contradictory. "Mortal" is contradictory to "immortal".