Posted by Anon.II, et al on 4/6/2001, 5:16 pm

Posted by Anon.II on 3/21/2001, 10:29 am Contrary to Steve’s belief, He INTRODUCED that Jesus was both a human and divine person. This is his ASSERTION. He has not provided any orthodox proof that this is the orthodox position of the doctrine of the Trinity. I do not have to prove what other Trinitarians believe outside their personal professions of faith and how they were taught what is orthodox. Steve asserted and I've objected, plain and simple the one who INTRODUCED a claim that is different than what more than (about 25) other Trinitarians have told me (including a professor of Theology at Seattle University), the burden of proof is Steve's. Also notice how the point I've made about the second divine personage CHANGING to a combined human and divine personage is not addressed. The ad hominems keep on rolling in. ---------- Support Posted by Steve B. on 3/21/2001, 1:09 pm , in reply to "Asserting without support" A2, You write He INTRODUCED that Jesus was both a human and divine person. This is his ASSERTION. He has not provided any orthodox proof that this is the orthodox position of the doctrine of the Trinity. This is extremely basic, and it really makes me wonder about the way you worded your questions to your 25 Trinitarians. I'm not at home so I can't quote from the books I mentioned earlier, but here are a few citations from some online sources I just checked: Jesus is God in human flesh. He is not half God and half man. He is fully God and fully man. At the incarnation He added to His divine nature the nature of man. Thus He has two natures: divine and human. He is both God and man at the same time. He is not merely a man who "had God within Him" nor is he a man who "manifested the God principle." He is God, second person of the Trinity. "The Son is the radiance of God's glory and the exact representation of his being, sustaining all things by his powerful word" (Heb. 1:3, NIV). Jesus' two natures are not "mixed together," nor are they combined into a new God-man nature. They are separate yet act as a unit. This is called the Hypostatic Union. ...One of the most common errors that non-Christian cults make is not understanding the two natures of Christ. For example, the Jehovah's Witnesses focus on Jesus' humanity and ignore His divinity. The Christian Scientists, on the other hand, focus on the divine nature and ignore the human. For a proper understanding of Jesus and, therefore, all other doctrines that relate to Him, His two natures must be properly understood and defined. (Christian Apologetics & Research Ministry, http://www.carm.org/, Article "Jesus' Two Natures") ...By becoming a man, Jesus did not cease being God. The incarnation of Christ did not involve the subtraction of deity, but the addition of humanity. Jesus clearly claimed to be God on many occasions (Matthew 16:16,17; John 8:58; 10:30). But in addition to being divine, He was also human (see Philippians 2:6-8). He had two natures (divine and human) conjoined in one person. (The Bible and Christian Theology, http://www.christiananswers.net/menu-at1.html, Article "If Jesus was the Son of God, why did He call Himself the Son of Man?") At Chalcedon [451 A.D.] the incarnation was defined as being of 'two natures, one person'—a formula that has remained standard Christian orthodoxy. (Microsoft Encarta Encylopedia, http://encarta.msn.com/, Article "Christology," written by Reginald H. Fuller, M.A., S.T.D. Professor Emeritus of New Testament, Virginia Theological Seminary. Author of The Foundations of New Testament Christology and The New Testament in Current Study.) Now it's your turn to document your claims that my statements have deviated from "orthodox" Trinitarian doctrine. You also write I do not have to prove what other Trinitarians believe outside their personal professions of faith and how they were taught what is orthodox. No, but if one posts messages in a public forum claiming to give "correct information" about a subject, and charging somebody else with straying from the correct knowledge of that subject, it is customary to provide more than anecdotal support from unnamed sources. Otherwise your credibility takes some pretty big hits. You also write Also notice how the point I've made about the second divine personage CHANGING to a combined human and divine personage is not addressed. I don't see this as a serious objection to trinitarian belief because it is based on a faulty, unsupported definition of God's immutability. Or perhaps more accurately, it is based on presuppositions about immutability that correspond more closely with the Greek philosophic notions of God's immutability than anything the Bible really says about it. The Greek concept of God's immutability would indeed mean that God could not become human in any sense, because that would involve a change in God. The Greek pagan Celsus used that as his main argument against Christianity in the middle of the second century. The Biblical statements (in Hebrews) about God's immutability, on the other hand, are applied to God's will and to his oath. I don' see how that passage can reasonably be used to rule out an event like the incarnation, and in going back through my Bible college notes, I do not see any place where the Chapel adequately addressed this. The Old Testament passages that contain statements to the effect that God does not change (for example Malachai 3:6) also specifically concern his will and his purpose. As with the New Testament passages, I do not see how the context can be broadened to include an implicit statement against the possibility of the Son of God becoming man. If the Bible contains statements indicating God does not change, and also contains statements indicating the Son of God took on human nature, then I think it would be a more satisfactory approach to ask in what sense the statements of God's unchangeability are meant. Your approach seems to ask us to assume a rigid meaning for God's immutability that is not supported by the context in which it the concept is found. Then this unsupported definition of “immutability” is used to rule out the apparent meaning of other Biblical passages. To me, that is an unsatisfactory approach to determining the meaning of the Scriptures, and it is one reason why I've had to conclude that Oneness doctrine is inadequate. Sincerely, Steve Born Email: srborn@seanet.com Home page: http://www.seanet.com/~srborn/ ---------- Of course YOU DON'T, but others do Posted by Anon.II on 3/21/2001, 1:48 pm , in reply to "Support" In that Steve's sources are not considered conforming to the Christian faith as represented in the creeds of the early church, I too can find opinions that claim orthodoxy: PRINCIPLES OF CHRISTIAN THEOLOGY, BY Macquarrie. "Any study of the person of Christ must remain to some extent artificial until we have gone on to consider his work. Although the incarnation is from first to last a work of God, it implies also the full coworking of this TRULY HUMAN PERSON, Jesus of Nazareth, tempted like other men, yet "obedient unto death, even death on a cross." We must now study more closely this obedient work, by which Christ has opened up for all men a new potentiality for being." Notice that even Steve's source contradicts his assertion: "Jesus' two natures are not "mixed together," nor are they combined into a new God-man nature. They are separate yet act as a unit. This is called the Hypostatic Union." My position stands.