Who died on the cross? - a Hall of Fame thread.
- Thread starter Nathon Detroit
- Start date
- Status
:up:
Non-philosophers. :nono:
Knight, why do you crucify the Father?
Ask Mr. Religion
☞☞☞☞Presbyterian (PCA) 	
Gold Subscriber
LIFETIME MEMBER
Hall of Fame
Let’s let Scripture interpret Scripture.
Sozo's first verse is Hebrews 1:3:
Hebrews 1:1-2:18 are intended by the author to demonstrate the superiority of Christ over the Angels of God.
The first two sentences of Hebrews 1:3 are written in the present tense. They are describing the God the Son. The context in view at this moment is not the incarnation at all, but certainly will be relevant to the Incarnation, since in this verse we get a small tutorial on exactly what the Second Person of the Trinity means.
The first two sentences describe the Second Person of the Trinity, the Son of God. By “exact representation of His nature” we see God the Son’s unity of essence with the Father and the distinction of the divine persons. Nothing here conflicts with the well-understood doctrine of God being one essence, with three personal subsistences, Father, Son, and Holy Spirit. The Son reveals accurately the Father because He is One whose being corresponds exactly to the Father. We also see from “upholds all things by the word of His power” a confirmation of Christ’s role as Creator of the universe (see Hebrews 1:2), but also that He is upholding the universe, “upholds all things” as well. Note here that “upholds” is present and continuing. This directly contradicts numerous posts by folks (e.g., godrulz) who believe that God has set some things in motion and let’s them run their course.
Nothing in Hebrews 1:3 so far is describing the Incarnate Christ; what is being described is The Son of God that has always existed (v. 1:2).
In the final sentence of the passage, note that the verb tense changes and is speaking in the past tense: “When He made purification for sins…” The change is to indicate Christ had already obtained purification for sins by the atonement. And this purification is continually applied to believer’s through Christ’s intercession (Hebrews 7:25). The same Christ (“When He”) is in view, so now we have some idea that the Incarnation does indeed comprise God the Son. But we don’t have enough from this single verse to build the argument Sozo has constructed from this verse. Sozo has chosen to ignore the remainder of Hebrews.
Hebrews 1:1-2:18 are intended by the writer to demonstrate the superiority of Christ over the Angels of God. Had Sozo read more of Hebrews he would have encountered more discussion about Christ’s nature and more directly relevant verses with respect to the Incarnate Christ. It is only in Hebrews that we find the full development of the priestly role of Christ (see also 4:14-16; 5:1-10; 6:20; 7:14-19; 26-28; 8:1-6; 9:11-28; 10). The first 18 verses of the second chapter of Hebrews describe Christ’s superiority and His role as Savior and High Priest. In Hebrews 2:17, we read:
“Therefore, He had to be made like His brethren in all things, so that He might become a merciful and faithful high priest in things pertaining to God, to make propitiation for the sins of the people.”
Now we have the Incarnate Christ very clearly in view and are being told of the necessity for Christ to be identified with man as our High Priest. To help sinners Christ had to become like “His brethren”, and not just become partially like a man, as Sozo maintains, but “in all things”. Elsewhere, the author of Hebrews introduces the thoughts of identity with man in verses 9, 11-15. In verse 17, we see Christ “had to be made”, a man, “like His brethren” or we have no high priest “to make” the offering on our behalf, and be the offering. Brethren is not used here or anywhere in Scripture to describe something less than fully man.
In the next verse, Hebrews 2:18, we read:
“For since He Himself was tempted in that which He has suffered, He is able to come to the aid of those who are tempted.”
The genuine humanity of Christ Incarnate is in view here. Christ’s temptation was not a hollow sham, as it would be with Sozo’s view. If, as Sozo maintains, Christ is not fully man and fully God, but fully God in a biological body, Satan is actually tempting a Person that is fully divine, not a Person with fully human and fully divine natures. Sozo’s view reduces the temptation of Christ to a façade and does not give us the High Priest we need to justify us before God. Christ was tempted and suffered from these temptations, “in that which He has suffered”. If Christ is not fully human, but “only” fully God in the flesh, wherein does temptation and suffering from temptation lie? Nowhere in Scripture do we read about God suffering from being tempted. But we know Christ was tempted and He “has suffered” from the temptations. Thus, there is more to the Incarnate Christ than Sozo sees and this verse demonstrates.
In Hebrews 9:14, we read that Christ “offered Himself without blemish to God”. Of we accept Sozo’s position, God is offering Himself to God, for there is no fully human aspect to Sozo’s Incarnation and there can be no possibility of blemish to even speak about.
Sozo offered Hebrews 1:3 as support for his position. He has ignored the remainder of Hebrews, where the development of the High Priest role of Christ is taught and show that Christ must be fully human and fully God. Therefore, verse 1:3 cannot stand alone to support Sozo’s position with so many other verses in Hebrews that support different views. These verses across all chapters of Hebrews must be reconciled with Hebrews 1:3 by Sozo if he is to be able to rely upon a single verse from the Book of Hebrews. Sozo clearly has not done this, for he cannot do this, as the teachings described above are clear.
Sozo’s second of three verses is Romans 1:20. Another post will examine this verse.
ApologeticJedi
New member
nature
8 entries found.
Main Entry:
na·ture Listen to the pronunciation of nature
Pronunciation:
\ˈnā-chər\
Function:
noun
Etymology:
Middle English, from Middle French, from Latin natura, from natus, past participle of nasci to be born — more at nation
Date:
14th century
1 a: the inherent character or basic constitution of a person or thing : essence
If we lessening the meaning of "nature" to meaning only that Jesus was a reflection of humanity, then we devised somethin all groups would readily agree upon. Even the monophsitists would agree that Christ was a reflection of humanity.
I'm not criticizing - just the opposite - it is good to find common ground and explain what we mean. I also like that you are leading us away from buzz words for the sake of buzz words and venturing into the realm of ideas, something a few do not seem to wish to.
Hypostatically united? Are you trying to turn it into an adverb?
What would hypostatically mean? Hypostatic is a derivative of a Greek word meaning "essence". When we speak of someone's essence or nature we are speaking of their individuality. The phrase "hypostatic union" means a union of essence. If taken literally it implies there are two individualities within the one person of Christ; the human man and the divine God.
I liked your explanation and had no problem with it. I do have a problem with the idea that God was somehow divorced from the life of Jesus in any real way. As you said, Jesus was 100% God. Whatever Jesus did, the Second Person felt - in fact, it was the second person. There is no dichotomy necessary. The Second Person of the Trinity felt physical death.
seekinganswers
New member
My own position is shaped by the theology of the Wesleyans (particularly those who challange the model of Classical Theism). For Wesley, though Wesley doesn't do away with the categories of Classical Theism, there are aspects of God's nature which are far more important to preserve than are others. One of these aspects is that of God's love (i.e. that if we are forced to choose between God's omnipotence/omniscience, and God's love, than God's love would win out every time). Of course, we might have more success if we were to do away with the concept of impassibility, because it seems untenible to me (unless you are willing to accept the god of Aristotle, i.e. the unmoved mover). Scripture clearly demonstrates a God who acts within the Creation (and at times God's is very much passible).
The only reason one would struggle with God "dying" on the cross is if the divine nature of the Son is violated by death (that the Son would cease to be God because he experiences death). When we talk about the Son dying, we are not, however, speaking of the death of Father and Spirit (it is not as though God is destroyed on the cross). So the real question is whether you are willing to say that Christ brings together the Divine and Humanity in such a way that God intimately knows our death, and we share in the life of God. God didn't just let the body experience death and suffering. He took it upon himself, and in some way shared in that experience (because God cannot redeem us unless he takes on every aspect of our nature, even our mortality).
The importance of holding the two natures of Christ together all the way through cannot be overstated. If Christ is not fully God and fully human, even to death, than we are not saved, we are not redeemed, and we cannot be restored.
Peace,
Michael
ApologeticJedi
New member
Actually one can uphold actively or passively. The maker of the seat belt is still saving lives even now that he is dead.
Sozo, did you say that Jesus wasn't human? I don't recall, but that seems to be the picture AMR wants to paint of you. This seems like strawman attacks.
Actually isn't it your view AMR that makes all of the Incarnation a facade. I mean you seem to want to hold to a form of Nestorianism that says that the Second Person was out of the room while Jesus the human was being tempted.
Jesus was human and he was God. To argue for a dichotomy between the divine and the humanity is to bark up the wrong trial.
seekinganswers
New member
So are you in fact proposing that Christ is neither God nor human, but is rather something in the middle? Because the early church decided against this. Christ is not some third nature (a demi-god or whatever). Christ is fully God and fully human (two natures). This was the affirmation of the church, because soteriologically speaking if Christ is not fully both, than we are not much helped by Christ (our humanity is lost, and we can hope for nothing more than an escape from the Creation, an escape from the body, an escape from the world altogether).
Peace,
Michael
seekinganswers
New member
ApologeticJedi,
I no more was implying that the Orthodox church turned Christ into a third type than I was saying that the protestants actually tear him into the two natures. What I was saying in that is on the Eastern side, if one is heretical they tend towards the monophysite heresy.
Hopefully I was being quite clear about that when I stated that the Catholic/Orthodox position is unified in the early councils; Christ is two natures which must be held together in unity (as paradoxical as that might be).
Peace,
Michael
seekinganswers
New member
Hectic semester at Seminary (and at UPS). It's good to see that you haven't given up on the entire endeavor.
Peace,
Michael
Why do you say incredibly asinine and stupid things? :idunno:
:first: POTD
You would do well to read it. It will either refute or strengthen your position. Your proof texts are not being interpreted properly and are not parallel to the issues you are debating about nature vs person.
This thread is going nowhere fast.
As usual, everyone else is wrong and you alone are right (Knight does not like theology, so I am disappointed in his shallow wrestling on this topic; Christ as one person with 2 natures has stood the test of time for a reason despite attacks from amateurs and cults).
Why don't you just ask a leopard why he keeps wearing those silly spots?
Christian denominations that believe the essentials as you do are not cults. Save the pejorative label for true cults that deny the essentials of the faith like the Deity and resurrection of Christ.
Saying the one person of Jesus being the Son of God and the Son of Man is biblical and triune, not a 4th being. You are misrepresenting him creating a nonsensical straw man that no one believes. Credibility rating is sinking again.
Is this one nature God, man, or a 50-50? (the correct answer is 100-100, like in marriage).
beloved57
Well-known member
This portion is where my interest lies..The writer seems to be saying that God the Son which is Jesus that his Divine nature was begotten or generated in eternity..
I dont agree with that assesment at all.. I believe its correct to say that the man jesus christ was generated or begotten fron eternity and that he is the only man that was uniquley begotten from the very essence of Deity..This unique man was hypostatically joined to The Divine Word of God [ The Son] but God the Son The Word was never generated or begotten but the man Jesus Christ was..
Yes Jesus was begotten or born of a virgin but that was concerning his becoming a man of flesh and blood , also he was begotten as he rose from the grave , that was declarative of his Divine nature as the son of God in hypostatic union with The Word , though the word of God did not die, but he was begotten as a spiritual man from the very bowels of The Father, from eternity past..and thats what it means in jn 3 16 he is the only begotten son of God not according to his Divine Nature but according to being a spiritual man..
This needs to stay disitnguished less you teach that The Eternal Sonof God the Word was some how begotten or generated according to Divine being and thats heresy..
Ask Mr. Religion
☞☞☞☞Presbyterian (PCA) 	
Gold Subscriber
LIFETIME MEMBER
Hall of Fame
Sozo proposes Hebrews 1:3, Romans 1:20, and Acts 14:14-15 as verses that support his view that the Incarnate Christ is fully God in the flesh, with no human soul, that is, Sozo rejects any hypostatic union between the fully divine and the fully human.
I hold to the Chalcedonian Definition of the Incarnation, and have discussed it at length herein, most recently, here.
Sozo’s reliance upon Hebrews 1:3 has been called into serious question by the arguments presented here.
In this post I turn attention to the remaining two verses, Romans 1:20 and Acts 14:14.
Romans 1:20 reads (I have retained the emphases Sozo applied in the verses he quoted):
"For since the creation of the world His invisible attributes, His eternal power and divine nature, have been clearly seen, being understood through what has been made, so that they are without excuse." Romans 1:20
In Romans 1:18 – Romans 3:20, Paul discusses the need for salvation and the plight of mankind, exposing the sinfulness of man in order to persuade the reader of his hopelessly lost condition and the need for redemption. Beginning at verse 18, Paul begins correlating righteousness and wrath as “being revealed” (v.18). Paul notes in the same verse the twofold object of God’s wrath, “all ungodliness and unrighteousness of men”. These are “men” (Jews and Gentiles alike) “who suppress the truth in unrighteousness”. The “truth” men have suppressed is the truth about God (see verse 1:25). This point, i.e., the truth about God, is the true context of Romans 1:20 and does not have the Incarnate Christ in view.
In verses Romans 1:19 and Romans 1:20, Paul argues that creation bears witness, via general revelation, to its Creator, that the evidence has been made “plain to them” (v. 19) and the aforementioned ungodly and unrighteous men “are without excuse” (v. 20). Note from the use of “being understood” in verse 20, the general revelation of God’s “invisible attributes, His eternal power and divine nature” (v.20), does not end with perception, “clearly seen” (v. 20), but it is “understood through what has been made”. In other words the general revelation of God is expected to include reflection, to draw conclusions about the Creator. The general revelation is an ever present testimony of God, maintained “since the creation of the world” (v. 20, see also Acts 14:17). This testimony of God, His general revelation, only reflects certain aspects of God—“His eternal power and divine nature” (v. 20). For example, we must look elsewhere for revelations of God’s love and grace—to God’s special revelation, the Scriptures, and particularly to the revelation of God in His Son as in John 1:14.
From the above, it is clear that the teaching of Romans 1:20 and its surrounding verses is that general revelation is wholly sufficient in assigning responsibility to man. And that God’s revealed power should prepare man to seek God’s grace, yet man has failed and is without excuse. Sozo’s reliance upon 1:20 as directly relevant to support his view on the Incarnate Christ is unsubstantiated.
Sozo’s last verse is Acts 14:14-15, which reads(I have retained the emphases Sozo applied in the verses he quoted):
"But when the apostles, Barnabas and Paul, heard of it, they tore their robes and rushed out into the crowd, crying out and saying, "Men, why are you doing these things? We are also men of the same nature as you, and preach the gospel to you in order that you should turn from these vain things to a living God, who made the heaven and the earth and the sea, and all that is in them."
The Lycaonians were pagans and probably peasants living in the hinterland of Greco-Roman civilization, who, when Barnabas and Paul visited, believed that Zeus and Hermes were paying them a visit. In their native tongues, they began to call Barnabas Zeus and Paul Hermes (Acts 14:12) for they thought "The gods have become like men and have come down to us” (Acts 14:11). The temple priest of Zeus, certain that two gods were visiting, came out and was preparing to offer sacrifices to Barnabas and Paul. Now Barnabas and Paul did not understand the Lycaonians’ language, and were slow to catch on what was about to happen. But when this finally dawned on them, they “tore their robes and rushed out into the crowd” (v. 14) exhorting them to stop. Barnabas and Paul reminds them that they are not gods, but that “we are also men of the same nature as you”, that is, they are fully human as are the Lycaonians. Barnabas and Paul tell the crowd that what they are about to do are empty acts, “vain things”, and that instead of making offerings to lifeless idols, they should turn “to a living God who made the heaven and the earth and the sea, and all that is in them.”
As seen from this discussion, the Incarnate Christ is not in view. The context is a descriptive of an event during a missionary journey and teaches us the futility of idolatry, denounces paganism, while proclaiming the one, true, living God. Sozo’s reliance upon Acts 14:14-15 as directly relevant to support his view on the Incarnate Christ is unsubstantiated.
Sozo has claimed the three verses completely defend his position that Christ was fully God in a biological body, and not one Person with a fully human and fully divine nature. I have shown that the context of these verses cannot reasonably support the assertions Sozo has made. This leaves Sozo with no biblical defense for his position.
- Status