Posted by Anon.II, et al on 4/6/2001, 4:32 pm

Posted by Anon.II on 3/19/2001, 11:42 pm Steve's response given to Author Unknown in the thread below includes these statements: “the person we now know as Jesus, already having the divine nature, took on human nature in his conception and birth, and has never been without both natures since that time.” That is, the person we now know as Jesus, already having the divine nature, took on human nature in his conception and birth, and has never been without both natures since that time.” Though Steve has previously asserted that he believes Philippians 2 teaches a Pre-incarnate Christ, here he concedes that Philippians 2 teaches that Jesus is both God and man AFTER the incarnation. Why? To serve a purpose concerning the angle of the question that was asked. As we continue, WE MUST REMEMBER that Steve believes that the PERSON OF GOD THE SON is the pre-incarnate part of Jesus, not the man or human nature we know as Christ. (Which, by the way, is a Oneness tenet, minus the “persons of God” tag.) He goes on: “It was a man of combined human and divine nature that died, and a man of combined human and divine nature that was resurrected and now lives forever.” Note: These statements do not use the word PERSON to describe Jesus’ nature, though, in this context, Steve does believe that Jesus is a PERSON of both human and divine composition. Do you see the implication that arises from the understanding Steve is trying to convey here? If Jesus was only A DIVINE PERSON before his incarnation, and His nature as Christ was, as Steve says, taken on in his conception and birth, and He has never been without both natures since that time; what is the implication? We see it is being purported that Jesus’ alleged DIVINE PERSONAGE has CHANGED at the incarnation to become a combined HUMAN AND DIVINE PERSONAGE. Two main incongruities surface in light of the explanation given above. One, that God is immutable, and two, that God cannot die. Further, there is a third concern, that the bible does not teach such a concept at all. Any claim to interpretive right of way means nothing to me, in light of the absence of one clear scripture that calls God a person, not to mention the absence of any and all synonyms. On the other hand, Oneness theology has no problem with the fact that Jesus has a human personage, but Steve insists that Oneness teaches that God was a person, because he thinks that Chapel taught that Jesus was a divine person and a human person. To bible believers, the issue here really is what the bible says about Jesus? Is there any way that Steve can deal with what the bible actually says? Can he prove the Trinity with the bible, without using ad hominem tactics to try and take the attention off what we all know to be the real problem here? That problem being that the bible does not teach that God is even one person much less three? He has not done so. This use of ad hominems, is a skillful attempt to imply guilt on the Oneness doctrine by way of the Chapel, only to detour any discussion and our attentions away from the fact that God is spirit, not a person. We also see here, evidence of what I explained in an earlier post, how Steve is teaching a Trinity that is not orthodox. The Trinity doctrine does teach that Jesus had a human personage separate from God the son, and that both died on the cross. Steve is saying that the one combined personage died on the cross. This is the Oneness dual nature theology that has a flip-flopped element to fit a Trinitarian mindset. The only difference between our belief and Steve’s, in regards to the above, is the PERSONS OF GOD tag. The one personage that died on the cross was a human personage, not divine. Because Steve knows many of the aspects of the Oneness theology, he appeals to our understandings, but does in fact stray from orthodox Trinitarian teaching, in order to convince US of the veracity of his assertions. However, in his attempt to adequately safeguard the deity of Christ, it seems his theology is evolving into a tumbling stone that is gathering incongruities like moss on its way. How does Jesus’ human personage threaten His deity? This is just another, of a long string of guilt trips, being heaped on Oneness believers that is, in fact, idle and empty. If one man chooses to believe that Jesus is God, and another chooses to believe that Jesus is not, how does that change the facts of what is true? How does that negate that the person’s faith is true belief that Jesus is God? This is absurd. Remember that we are justified by our faith, not our works, lest any man should boast! The bible says it is Christ’s personage, not a divine personage in 2 Cor 2:10. If this is a threat to Jesus’ deity, than it is God’s word that places it in such jeopardy, not Oneness. Such a pious accusation is only heady and high minded to me, and bears no weight in actuality as to how to safeguard Jesus’ deity. Does using an extrabiblical definition that says Jesus is a man of combined human and divine personage safeguard what the bible says about Jesus? No! This is just an excuse given to take license to interpret by way of interjected words into God’s word that are not there originally FOR A PURPOSE. Making Jesus’ person a deified one instead of a human one is contrary to clear scripture, so who is not safeguarding what? To the Oneness believer, the deity of Jesus can only be safeguarded by God’s word itself, not a man-made interpretation that makes us feel safe and secure when we tuck ourselves in at night. The bible says man’s role in understanding His word is more noble when we search the scriptures to see if these things be so, not when we seek “pictures that emerge” from the opinions of men. Now, concerning Philippians 2, and Steve’s interpretation that this verse teaches a pre-incarnate Christ. To make this as plain as I possible can, what part of the verses themselves or the context could possibly teach a pre-incarnate Christ? Verses 5–7 read: “Let this mind be in you, which was also in Christ Jesus: Who, being in the form of God, thought it not robbery to be equal with God: But made himself of no reputation, and took upon him the form of a servant, and was made in the likeness of men.” This is from Steve’s post of 1/16/01on Phil.2: “In order to demonstrate humility, one has to consciously decide to take a lower station, right? A decision has to occur at a point in time. If Jesus was already “in the form of a servant and in the likeness of men” when he made his decision, there would be no decision involved, and hence no humility. Being found in fashion as a man, etc., was the result of his decision. Before that he was in the form of God, the state in which he made the decision, as the verb tenses show. There would be no difficulty in admitting all this, were it not to preserve a theology in which Jesus is said to begin existence only at his human conception.” *We all know that Jesus was not the Christ until he was incarnate. If verse 5 says that this mind was in Christ Jesus, it must have been during His incarnation. *When Steve asserted “In order to demonstrate humility, one has to consciously decide to take a lower station, right? Again, since v.5 is talking about the mind of Christ, the decision was during his human life. *“A decision has to occur at a point in time.” This is the point of debate. *Does “in the form of a servant” mean becoming human? When Jesus made himself of no reputation, and took on the form of a servant, that was a human decision that he made. No divine decision is mentioned. *Does “in the likeness of men” mean becoming human? When Adam and Eve were made in the likeness of God, did that mean they became Gods? (Gen.5: 1) *Being found in the fashion as a man was not the result of the mind of Christ that was already found in the fashion as a man. *Before being man He was not in the form of God, but it was the Christ (v.5) whose being was in the form of God as man. *He asserts “as the verb tenses show”. The verb tenses failed to show this, on the contrary, Steve’s reference of Vincent’s said the verbs did not carry the “eternal” attribute of a pre-incarnate Christ. *Paul was not saying that their attitude should be like Christ Jesus before he was a human person, because it was while he was with man that he did not consider his equality with God. *The “being” referred to in the context is Jesus, in the form of God, prior to this epistle, not prior to the incarnation. *Paul is referring to Christ having an attitude while He was with man, not during a pre-existence in eternity. *The word “became”, without argument, only supports the incarnation. *Paul’s instruction is an effective and inspired use of contrast, to illustrate that Jesus did not covet the majesty and power of equality with God while being in the form of God. *Neither the verbs nor the context warrants the stretch into eternity that the pre-incarnate definition requires. *There would be no difficulty in admitting all this, were it not to preserve a theology in which the Christ is said to exist before his human conception.” *Steve himself admits that these verses teach that Jesus is both God and man, during His incarnation. *And finally, if it is so difficult to comprehend that Christ as a man could have this mind, then why would Paul exhort the Philippians, as men, to have this same mind? In closing, I’m not interested in Steve’s criticisms of my studies. He has said he does not have the time to sort through my thoughts, and I think he should leave it at that.