Engaged Perfection: : The Relational Nature of God

[Right Divider]

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

Jesus was BOTH God and man. So no contradiction at all.

 

[Clete]

Agreed

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

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?


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

You're reading too much into those three words.

Acts13:33 God has fulfilled this for us their children, in that He has raised up Jesus. As it is also written in the second Psalm:​

​

‘You are My Son,
Today I have begotten You.’​

​

34 And that He raised Him from the dead, no more to return to corruption, He has spoken thus:​

​

‘I will give you the sure mercies of David.’​

​

35 Therefore He also says in another Psalm:​

​

‘You will not allow Your Holy One to see corruption.’​

​

36 “For David, after he had served his own generation by the will of God, fell asleep, was buried with his fathers, and saw corruption; 37 but He whom God raised up saw no corruption.​

​

For "corruption" read "decay" as my NKJV correctly points out. It's Strong's G1312...

diaphthora:

1. corruption, destruction
2. in the NT that destruction which is effected by the decay of the body after death

Luke is drawing a parallel between David, who did decay and Jesus, the Seed of David, who did not see decay.

In short, there is no conflict between Christ's divinity and His humanity. Jesus was both. It isn't that He was God and He was a man as though the two remained separated and Jesus was some sort of bifurcated thing. No! The two had become one in Christ and, as such, He was and is the Godman.

 

[Clete]

You guys are arguing in favor of a Calvinist doctrine called the Hypostatic Union. I assure you there is no need for the doctrine! Their reasoning for the doctrine is based on the same notions that I deal with in the opening post.

Calvinists (and other Augustinians) argue that if Jesus’ divinity were to be completely merged with His humanity, the limitations of human experience, such as suffering, weakness, or mortality, would undermine the divine attributes like omnipotence, omniscience and most certainly immutability. They argue that God, by nature, cannot change, suffer, or die. If Jesus’ divinity were fully "humanized," it would imply that God can suffer or be limited, which would conflict with their most cherished doctrines, namely immutability, impassibility and divine simplicity.

I believe that the hypostatic union doctrine is a tacit denial of the gospel itself. It was God who suffered and died on that cross, not just some human half of Him. When Jesus died, He was really dead - all of Him. He was just as dead as any other righteous person who has ever died, before or since and I, for one, consider the fact that it was God Himself who came and died for our sin to be an indispensable part of the gospel and that if you do not believe that God died for your sin, then you are not saved.

John 8:24 Therefore I said to you that you will die in your sins; for if you do not believe that I am He, you will die in your sins.”​

 

[Right Divider]

@Clete Please don't try to tag us with believing Calvinist doctrine.

I understand that you believe that the union of God and man in Christ makes a new unique nature. I can see why you argue that and in many ways I agree with it. And yet we both still talk about Jesus as BOTH God and man. And that's TWO things.

So let's agree that BOTH views are compatible with reality.

 

[Clete]

@Clete Please don't try to tag us with believing Calvinist doctrine.

I can detect no difference between what you are arguing and the Calvinist hypostatic union doctrine. I have no problem at all believing that you reject the Calvinist rational for this doctrine, which is the reason I brought it up. The point being that if you reject the rational for the doctrine, why do you retain the doctrine?

I understand that you believe that the union of God and man in Christ makes a new unique nature. I can see why you argue that and in many ways I agree with it. And yet we both still talk about Jesus as BOTH God and man. And that's TWO things.

So let's agree that BOTH views are compatible with reality.

Using that phrasing as a "manner of speaking" is quite different than holding to a specific doctrine, right?

I have no problem with saying that God is both God and man. I have used the exact vernacular myself on this very thread but that's quite different than saying that Jesus had two separate natures. Talking about one coin having two sides isn't the same thing as saying you have a coin with a head and a coin with a tail. It's one coin. If it didn't have both, it wouldn't even be a real coin at all, which is to say that having a head side and a tail side is a description of the coin's nature (singular).