The Trinity

[Randy]

I tried at length to explain this to you, from my perspective, but apparently you don't "understand me?" The Spirit of God indwells all men who put their faith in Jesus. And the Spirit of God indwelt Jesus as a man in the same way.

And I tried to show the difference between one who was gifted all the fullness of the Deity vs one who is born again.
For in Christ all the fullness of the Deity lives in bodily form, 10and in Christ you have been brought to fullness.

None of this implied anything with respect to Jesus' Divine Nature. By the Word and Revelation of God Jesus appeared *from Eternity,* ie from the Eternal God, to portray that same Eternal God in the form of a man, who happens to also be filled with the Holy Spirit.

As I said before, I don't believe we should conflate the Holy Spirit as a Person of the Trinity with the Spirit of God when referred to as God's Essence, or Constitution. God is spirit, we are told. That is His constitution, His essence, His substance.

But speaking of His Infinite Substance is very different from speaking of His *local operations* via the Holy Spirit. The Holy Spirit is perceived in specific locations, even though He is also of God's Eternal, Infinite Essence.

And being a "local operation" it would be confusing to conflate God's local operations with His Infinite attributes, which include Omnipresence. God as a spirit and God as the Holy Spirit are both realities, but they are distinctly different expressions with their own meanings. One is God's Infinite Constitution, while the other is a Person expressing God in our own finite world.

In other words, "God as spirit" in His Constitution stands apart from the Holy Spirit as God's "local operations." Conflating them creates confusion.

But that's what you're doing. You're describing God's Infinite Constitution as "indwelling Jesus," which sounds irrational. God's Infinite Constitution, or Being, was revealed in the form of Jesus. But it was the Holy Spirit, God's local expression, who indwelt Jesus as a man.

The Father was living in Jesus doing His work as Jesus stated. That had to be by "His" Spirit.

But at this point I'm doubting you understand what I mean. This is becoming an exercise in futility for me?

Well I think we will have to agree to disagree. As Jesus is not coeternal. He is begotten. The Father is unbegotten.
My answers are not going to change and if you feel the same then we should stop.

 

[RandyK]

I believe in one true God my Father. He is unbegotten and His Deity is the First and Last. Its His Deity without limit that lives in Jesus from His beginning and forever. They are one.

It's clear to me from what you state about the Son of Man despite your denial you believe in a created Son of Man. Both His spirit and the new creation of the Deity dwelling in Him post creation.

That's what you believe, but is untrue. I believe the Son of Man is God's Word from Eternity being expressed in time in the form of the man, Jesus Christ.

Does the fact God created a human body for Jesus mean that the "Son of Man" is strictly created and not eternal? No.

God "created" a revelation of His Infinite Being that emanates from eternity to depict His infinite Personality in the form of a human Son. We cannot do this, and so we do not believe it.

But actually, Christians believe it because they both see it and experience it. You do not appear to be this kind of "Christian?"

Arius may have reasoned if the Son is begotten of the Father He has a beginning. Other than that, I don't know much of all of His beliefs. If you can show where I have quoted Arius please do. I assure you my understanding is from the NT and above.

The main point is that Arius argued, as you do, that having a beginning, God's Son was created and thus different from the Eternal God. By contrast, I believe God created His Son's finite image in time and generated it from eternity, ie from the Eternal Being of God.

Very different perspectives, which you should acknowledge if you wish to present my beliefs properly? At this point, you do not.

 

[Randy]

That's what you believe, but is untrue. I believe the Son of Man is God's Word from Eternity being expressed in time in the form of the man, Jesus Christ.

Was the spirit of the Son of Man created in Mary's womb? Was the Deity gifted that defines the being of the Son of Man post creation?

Does the fact God created a human body for Jesus mean that the "Son of Man" is strictly created and not eternal? No.

God "created" a revelation of His Infinite Being that emanates from eternity to depict His infinite Personality in the form of a human Son. We cannot do this, and so we do not believe it.

But actually, Christians believe it because they both see it and experience it. You do not appear to be this kind of "Christian?"

The main point is that Arius argued, as you do, that having a beginning, God's Son was created and thus different from the Eternal God. By contrast, I believe God created His Son's finite image in time and generated it from eternity, ie from the Eternal Being of God.

Very different perspectives, which you should acknowledge if you wish to present my beliefs properly? At this point, you do not.

 

[RandyK]

And I tried to show the difference between one who was gifted all the fullness of the Deity vs one who is born again.
For in Christ all the fullness of the Deity lives in bodily form, 10and in Christ you have been brought to fullness.

There is a difference between Jesus being filled with the Spirit and Christians being filled with the Spirit. The difference is, the Word of God identified Jesus as His only Son, and the same Word of God does *not* identify Christians as His Divine Sons.

God identified Jesus as representative of His own Being in finite form, as a human being. He does not so reveal us to be identified with Deity!

The Father was living in Jesus doing His work as Jesus stated. That had to be by "His" Spirit.

That's true, but is irrelevant to our disagreement. We know the Father operated *by His Spirit* in Jesus to reflect both his Deity and his Divine Works.

As I said, God's constitution as "spirit" is one thing, but His local operations in and around Jesus in the form of the Holy Spirit is another thing. God's local operations via the Holy Spirit indwelling Jesus i not constitutional but operational.

God's relation from eternal to time, from infinite to finite involves operations. But it does not discard the constitutitonial equation. Jesus is the divine expression of God's infinite Person. But he is still, as a finite human being, filled with God's Holy Spirit.

Well I think we will have to agree to disagree. As Jesus is not coeternal. He is begotten. The Father is unbegotten.
My answers are not going to change and if you feel the same then we should stop.

Jesus was both co-eternal and begotten. They are not contradictory terms, since God's Word expresses what "God" wants to say--not what you want Him to say.

It was God's choice to use His Word as He chose--not in the way you decide He must express Himself. It may seem contradictory that an Eternal Being can expresss His own infinite Personality in the finite form of a man, but it was His choice to do so.

 

[Randy]

There is a difference between Jesus being filled with the Spirit and Christians being filled with the Spirit. The difference is, the Word of God identified Jesus as His only Son, and the same Word of God does *not* identify Christians as His Divine Sons.

The Father in Him and He in us. He and the Father are one. Just as Christ and those in Him are one. (The same manner). All the fullness of the Father was not gifted to us. We were given fullness in Christ.

God identified Jesus as representative of His own Being in finite form, as a human being. He does not so reveal us to be identified with Deity!

I don't hold that Jesus had the spirit of a man you do. Therefore, you believe the spirit of the Son of Man was created. You believe in a created Son of Man. I believe the Son who was, His spirit, descended from above and was in the body prepared for Him. I believe in a created Son. (His spirit) The Firstborn of God.
We both believe He is the Son of God as God declared, "This is My son whom I love with Him I am well pleased"

That's true, but is irrelevant to our disagreement. We know the Father operated *by His Spirit* in Jesus to reflect both his Deity and his Divine Works.

The Deity identified living in Him is the Father no other.

As I said, God's constitution as "spirit" is one thing, but His local operations in and around Jesus in the form of the Holy Spirit is another thing. God's local operations via the Holy Spirit indwelling Jesus i not constitutional but operational.

Or "God" spoke to us BY His Son. Jesus testified the message was not His own but from the one who sent Him. That is the source of all truth is the Father who is the true God.

God's relation from eternal to time, from infinite to finite involves operations. But it does not discard the constitutitonial equation. Jesus is the divine expression of God's infinite Person. But he is still, as a finite human being, filled with God's Holy Spirit.

Jesus was both co-eternal and begotten. They are not contradictory terms, since God's Word expresses what "God" wants to say--not what you want Him to say.

There is no history of the usage of the word begotten in regard to a son of a parent that means no beginning. It was just stated so. As in eternally begotten. A true God isn't from any other person. Jesus is not the only begotten unbegotten Son. He is the only begotten Son of the Father.

It was God's choice to use His Word as He chose--not in the way you decide He must express Himself. It may seem contradictory that an Eternal Being can expresss His own infinite Personality in the finite form of a man, but it was His choice to do so.

I believe this:Now this is eternal life: that they know you, the only true God, and Jesus Christ, whom you have sent.

Your belief: Now this is eternal life that they know us the only true God.

Jesus has a God and Father unlike God, our Father.

 

[RandyK]

The Father in Him and He in us. He and the Father are one. Just as Christ and those in Him are one. (The same manner).

This has nothing to do with our disagreement. Spiritual unity is not the same thing as spiritual *identification.* God identified Jesus as His "only Son." We are not identified as "Divine sons."

All the fullness of the Father was not gifted to us. We were given fullness in Christ.

It depends on whether you're talking about "identification with Deity" or simply partaking in the Divine nature by grace.

I don't hold that Jesus had the spirit of a man you do.

If Jesus did not have a human spirit, he was not, by definition, either a man or alive. The spirit that God put in man gives him a human spirit, which in turn animates his body.

Therefore, you believe the spirit of the Son of Man was created.

No, I told you I do not believe the Son of Man was strictly created. I said God created an impression of His own Infinite Personality from eternity and into time in the form of a human being. This "creation" was not ex nihilo--rather, it was "from eternity." Comprendes, or do you wish to continue misrepresenting what I *say?*

It is one thing to argue whether what I said was logical. It is another thing entirely to misrepresent what I say.

It is slanderous to misrepresent what I say. And I've said I do not believe Christ was created from nothing. He was a revelation of God's Word in time generated from eternity.

I'm not taking this any further since you misrepresent what I've said. This will lead others to believe I'm saying things I *have not said.*

 

[RandyK]

Was the spirit of the Son of Man created in Mary's womb? Was the Deity gifted that defines the being of the Son of Man post creation?

The human spirit of Jesus was created *from eternity* by *eternal generation.* Can I be any clearer?

If I make something out of nothing, then I'm producing a miracle from God. But if I "make" something out of clay, it is a creation of something that previously existed. It is *not* a miracle of God.

In the case of Christ, God "made" him from previously-existing Divine Substance. So he was not created from nothing. Christ was not created in the same way as the Universe was created, from nothing. He was rather created as a reproduction of God's Infinite Person in the form of a finite Person, Christ.

This capability, of reproducing the infinite God's Person in the form of many Persons, is possible and logical because an infinite Being can do many things and create many things within the orbit of what is called "infinite." It is a matter of His own discretion, and not subject to what we "think" is logical or not.

He can create finite things out of nothing. And He can create finite expressions of His own infinite Being, including in the form of Jesus, the Holy Spirit, and theophanies, etc. They are reproductions of God's own infinite Personality, and yet are expressed, within the finite, created realm, as distinct Personalities.

To some this will sound like "Modalism." But it is not. It is not because there is this necessary distinction between the Infinite Person of God and the various expressions of that Person within the finite realm as distinct Persons, who relate to one another as separate Persons.

How the Trinity relates to one another in the Infinite Realm, or "from Eternity," is well beyond my "pay grade!" ;) We only know that the plurality of Divine Persons originated from Eternity, each separately and distinctly. It is only within the finite realm that we understand this as such.

 

[Free]

"When we say that Jesus is God, we have to be very careful to qualify what we mean. We mean, when we say that Jesus is God, that Jesus has a divine nature—but He also has a human nature. Obviously, His human nature is not part of His deity; it’s a manifestation of His humanity.

There are two problems that arise when we deal with the question of the Trinity and the incarnation. The classic formulation for the Trinity is this: God is one in essence, but three in person, that is, the three persons of the Godhead—the Father, the Son, and the Holy Ghost. They are all, as one essence, fully God. They are co-eternal and co-substantial in terms of their power, dignity, and being.

In the incarnation, you have just the opposite. Instead of one essence and three persons, you have one person with two natures, and those two natures are the divine and the human. We have to be very careful not to confuse the divine and human natures of Jesus. If we do that, we end up with a deified human or a humanized deity, who in and of Himself is neither really human nor divine. The church has had to wrestle with that in past ages, which is why they’re very careful to distinguish between Christ’s two natures—the human and the divine.

So, when we say that Jesus is God, we don’t mean that the whole of Jesus is divine, because the human nature is not divine. But He has a divine nature, and that’s what we’re saying when we say Jesus is God—we’re saying that He is God incarnate, God united with a human nature."

https://learn.ligonier.org/qas/since-jesus-is-god-who-is-a-spirit-how-can-christ-also-be-human

 

[Free]

And I tried to show the difference between one who was gifted all the fullness of the Deity vs one who is born again.
For in Christ all the fullness of the Deity lives in bodily form, 10and in Christ you have been brought to fullness.

The Father was living in Jesus doing His work as Jesus stated. That had to be by "His" Spirit.

Well I think we will have to agree to disagree. As Jesus is not coeternal. He is begotten. The Father is unbegotten.
My answers are not going to change and if you feel the same then we should stop.

Jesus isn't coeternal, but the Son is. Your position cannot account for a simple and plain reading of John 1:1-18, 1 Cor. 8:6, Col. 1:16-17, Phil. 2:6-8, Heb. 1:2, 10-12, etc., and that's tragic, as those passages show that the Son is coeternal and coequal with the Father. John 1:1-2, 10, 14 and Phil. 2:6-8 are particularly vital in these discussions.

 

[RandyK]

"When we say that Jesus is God, we have to be very careful to qualify what we mean. We mean, when we say that Jesus is God, that Jesus has a divine nature—but He also has a human nature. Obviously, His human nature is not part of His deity; it’s a manifestation of His humanity.

I would disagree with Sproul, respectfully. I think Jesus' human nature, though expressed as distinct from his divine nature, is as divine as his "divine nature." This is not reducing God to humanity, but rather, God expressing Himself *in humanity.*

We only distinguish the two natures in Christ to show that in him Deity assumed the form of humanity. For God to have become a human, He had to have become a "true human," and not just the appearance of one.

True humanity would require a human spirit. The fact the human body is composed of temporal flesh, and has a finite human personality, does not conflict with Christ's radiance from God's Eternal Being. What is true about God in eternity can be true without contradiction as He appears in time. This is what the Word of God does without contradiction--it reveals God's Person(s) in time and in temporal ways.

Whether it is corruptible flesh or human behavior itself, what God expressed about Himself in Christ is an expression of God's own Person. How else could one distinguish a "divine nature" from a "human nature?"

We might think that God's Person must be expressed in a "soul," as a human person and its features, as opposed to his substance, such as flesh? But God's Person is infinite and is expressed not just in Jesus' soul, but also in his body, and in his actions.

They are all expressions of God's infinite Person, as I see it. God's Person is not just expressed in another person, but also in all of the things that make that person an expression of who he is. If you strip off Christ's body from his human spirit, what is left of Jesus as a person? But if you make only his soul, or human spirit, Divine, then you are reducing Deity to something less than who he really was and is as a man.

Everything about Jesus--his body, his human spirit, plus his works, originate from the eternal Word of God and express things about the Eternal God. They all express God's Person--not just the actors on a stage, but the whole drama, with its props.

Sometimes we say the whole Bible is the Word of God. Are we then to say that God's Person is being reduced to stories and theology? Well, God's Person can be reflected in the Son of God both as a human spirit and in his entire human nature--not just his human spirit.

Well, these things are difficult for me to argue. But that's how I see it.

There are two problems that arise when we deal with the question of the Trinity and the incarnation. The classic formulation for the Trinity is this: God is one in essence, but three in person, that is, the three persons of the Godhead—the Father, the Son, and the Holy Ghost. They are all, as one essence, fully God. They are co-eternal and co-substantial in terms of their power, dignity, and being.

In the incarnation, you have just the opposite. Instead of one essence and three persons, you have one person with two natures, and those two natures are the divine and the human. We have to be very careful not to confuse the divine and human natures of Jesus. If we do that, we end up with a deified human or a humanized deity, who in and of Himself is neither really human nor divine. The church has had to wrestle with that in past ages, which is why they’re very careful to distinguish between Christ’s two natures—the human and the divine.

I appreciate that, but prefer to express both the formula of "two natures" and the full deification of the human nature in Christ. If there is a prohibition on it in the creeds of in the Fathers' writings, I'd like to be pointed to it? But I have read the Church Fathers, in some measure, and have seen these issues arise--I just haven't seen any real argument precluding what I've said here?

So, when we say that Jesus is God, we don’t mean that the whole of Jesus is divine, because the human nature is not divine. But He has a divine nature, and that’s what we’re saying when we say Jesus is God—we’re saying that He is God incarnate, God united with a human nature."

https://learn.ligonier.org/qas/since-jesus-is-god-who-is-a-spirit-how-can-christ-also-be-human

 

[RandyK]

Jesus isn't coeternal, but the Son is.

I can't agree with this. I don't distinguish between the Son of God and Jesus. If there is a distinction between them, what is it?

Your position cannot account for a simple and plain reading of John 1:1-18, 1 Cor. 8:6, Col. 1:16-17, Phil. 2:6-8, Heb. 1:2, 10-12, etc., and that's tragic, as those passages show that the Son is coeternal and coequal with the Father. John 1:1-2, 10, 14 and Phil. 2:6-8 are particularly vital in these discussions.

I have not denied that the Son of God is co-eternal. In fact I've said the opposite. So what is "tragic" about that?

 

[Free]

I would disagree with Sproul, respectfully. I think Jesus' human nature, though expressed as distinct from his divine nature, is as divine as his "divine nature." This is not reducing God to humanity, but rather, God expressing Himself *in humanity.*

We only distinguish the two natures in Christ to show that in him Deity assumed the form of humanity. For God to have become a human, He had to have become a "true human," and not just the appearance of one.

True humanity would require a human spirit. The fact the human body is composed of temporal flesh, and has a finite human personality, does not conflict with Christ's radiance from God's Eternal Being. What is true about God in eternity can be true without contradiction as He appears in time. This is what the Word of God does without contradiction--it reveals God's Person(s) in time and in temporal ways.

Whether it is corruptible flesh or human behavior itself, what God expressed about Himself in Christ is an expression of God's own Person. How else could one distinguish a "divine nature" from a "human nature?"

We might think that God's Person must be expressed in a "soul," as a human person and its features, as opposed to his substance, such as flesh? But God's Person is infinite and is expressed not just in Jesus' soul, but also in his body, and in his actions.

They are all expressions of God's infinite Person, as I see it. God's Person is not just expressed in another person, but also in all of the things that make that person an expression of who he is. If you strip off Christ's body from his human spirit, what is left of Jesus as a person? But if you make only his soul, or human spirit, Divine, then you are reducing Deity to something less than who he really was and is as a man.

Everything about Jesus--his body, his human spirit, plus his works, originate from the eternal Word of God and express things about the Eternal God. They all express God's Person--not just the actors on a stage, but the whole drama, with its props.

Sometimes we say the whole Bible is the Word of God. Are we then to say that God's Person is being reduced to stories and theology? Well, God's Person can be reflected in the Son of God both as a human spirit and in his entire human nature--not just his human spirit.

Well, these things are difficult for me to argue. But that's how I see it.

I appreciate that, but prefer to express both the formula of "two natures" and the full deification of the human nature in Christ. If there is a prohibition on it in the creeds of in the Fathers' writings, I'd like to be pointed to it? But I have read the Church Fathers, in some measure, and have seen these issues arise--I just haven't seen any real argument precluding what I've said here?

The thing is, if his humanity is deified, if it's 'as divine as his "divine nature,"' then he cannot, by definition, be truly human. To be truly human is to not be divine. And, there is nothing in Scripture to say that his humanity was deified. He was both truly God and truly human, two natures united but not mixed.

"29. Furthermore it is necessary to everlasting salvation that he also believe rightly the incarnation of our Lord Jesus Christ.
30. For the right faith is that we believe and confess that our Lord Jesus Christ, the Son of God, is God and man.
31. God of the substance of the Father, begotten before the worlds; and man of substance of His mother, born in the world.
32. Perfect God and perfect man, of a reasonable soul and human flesh subsisting.
33. Equal to the Father as touching His Godhead, and inferior to the Father as touching His manhood.
34. Who, although He is God and man, yet He is not two, but one Christ.
35. One, not by conversion of the Godhead into flesh, but by taking of that manhood into God.
36. One altogether, not by confusion of substance, but by unity of person.
37. For as the reasonable soul and flesh is one man, so God and man is one Christ;"

https://www.ccel.org/creeds/athanasian.creed.html

It seems to me that your position begins to confuse the substances.

 

[RandyK]

I do understand why Christians, including myself, reject the confusion of Christ's divine nature with his human nature. It seems to reduce Deity to a strict humanity, which contradicts the infinite nature of Divine substance.

But the way God expresses Himself in the human Christ is all-important. It does not restrict God down to *only* being a human being, to having the substance of human flesh.

On the contrary, God generates a revelation of His infinite Being in finite forms, including Jesus' human spirit, his being clothed in human flesh, and behaving as the Son of God should behave. It is not a permanent "step down" for God to reveal Himself as a man.

Rather, it is a picture being generated from eternity that is now seen within the finite realm of man. God reveals His infinite Person in a finite Person who is an extension of the infinite Person with a real Personal distinction. And this real Personal distinction requires both body and spirit of a man in Christ. God is not just the human soul within the body of Christ.

So we should not confuse divine and human natures in Christ. But neither should we separate them, in my opinion. The human part is an expression from eternity of the divine part.

And the fact human substance is temporal while divine substance is eternal is not a contradiction. Rather, one is generated from the other without contradiction. This is done by the eternal Word who has the capacity to reveal the Infinite Being of God in temporal forms with real personal distinctions.

 

[Free]

I can't agree with this. I don't distinguish between the Son of God and Jesus. If there is a distinction between them, what is it?

Jesus is the name given to the incarnate Son, the God-man. There was no God-man prior to Jesus being born of Mary. The divine Son, the second person of the Trinity, in the person of Jesus is coeternal, but his humanity is not.

I have not denied that the Son of God is co-eternal. In fact I've said the opposite. So what is "tragic" about that?

I was actually responding to the other Randy.

 

[Free]

I do understand why Christians, including myself, reject the confusion of Christ's divine nature with his human nature. It seems to reduce Deity to a strict humanity, which contradicts the infinite nature of Divine substance.

But the way God expresses Himself in the human Christ is all-important. It does not restrict God down to *only* being a human being, to having the substance of human flesh.

On the contrary, God generates a revelation of His infinite Being in finite forms, including Jesus' human spirit, his being clothed in huma flesh, and behaving as the Son of God should behave. It is not a permanent "step down" for God to reveal Himself as a man.

Rather, it is a picture being generated from eternity that is now seen within the finite realm of man. God reveals His infinite Person in a finite Person who is an extension of the infinite Person with a real Personal distinction. And this real Personal distinction requires both body and spirit of a man in Christ. God is not just the human soul within the body of Christ.

So we should not confuse divine and human natures in Christ. But neither should we separate them, in my opinion. The human part is an expression from eternity of the divine part.

And the fact human substance is temporal while divine substance is eternal is not a contradiction. Rather, one is generated from the other without contradiction. This is done by the eternal Word who has the capcity to reveal the Infinite Being of God in temporal forms with real personal distinctions.

No, we should never separate them, but we shouldn't mix (confuse) them either. They're united without mixing, but they're not completely separate either. Another issue with deifying his humanity, is that then he couldn't have died on the cross, because deity cannot die. That he did die shows that his humanity remained simply and fully human.

There are a number of other implications as well, such as then he would not have truly suffered from hunger or thirst. Hence his fasting and resulting temptation would have been meaningless--there couldn't have been any actual feelings of temptation since no real deprivation would have been felt.

It would make this passage pretty much meaningless:

Heb 2:14 Since therefore the children share in flesh and blood, he himself likewise partook of the same things, that through death he might destroy the one who has the power of death, that is, the devil,
Heb 2:15 and deliver all those who through fear of death were subject to lifelong slavery.
Heb 2:16 For surely it is not angels that he helps, but he helps the offspring of Abraham.
Heb 2:17 Therefore he had to be made like his brothers in every respect, so that he might become a merciful and faithful high priest in the service of God, to make propitiation for the sins of the people.
Heb 2:18 For because he himself has suffered when tempted, he is able to help those who are being tempted.
(ESV)

If his humanity was deified, then he actually wasn't "made like his brothers in every respect," and he couldn't have "suffered when tempted."

 

[RandyK]

The thing is, if his humanity is deified, if it's 'as divine as his "divine nature,"' then he cannot, by definition, be truly human. To be truly human is to not be divine. And, there is nothing in Scripture to say that his humanity was deified. He was both truly God and truly human, two natures united but not mixed.

You clearly have a differenet set of parameters for your argument. Based on your reasoning, I'd have to agree with you.

But I'm using a whole different set of parameters in order to explain things in my own terms. And I don't believe my understanding is in any sense heretical.

I don't believe "divine nature" and "human nature" are contradictory terms in Christ. Human nature, for me, would *require* both Jesus' human soul and human body. What is a bodiless man, but just a human spirit? And that's not the "human" God made Christ to be.

"29. Furthermore it is necessary to everlasting salvation that he also believe rightly the incarnation of our Lord Jesus Christ.
30. For the right faith is that we believe and confess that our Lord Jesus Christ, the Son of God, is God and man.
31. God of the substance of the Father, begotten before the worlds; and man of substance of His mother, born in the world.
32. Perfect God and perfect man, of a reasonable soul and human flesh subsisting.
33. Equal to the Father as touching His Godhead, and inferior to the Father as touching His manhood.
34. Who, although He is God and man, yet He is not two, but one Christ.
35. One, not by conversion of the Godhead into flesh, but by taking of that manhood into God.

Yes, we should not be making "God into flesh" in the sense of "restricting Deity to flesh." This is the opposite of what I'm saying.

God revealed Himself in the human Jesus, soul and body. That includes the flesh. It is indeed making God into flesh. But it is not turning God into flesh and reducing Him strictly and eternally into flesh!

In other words, God is not restricted to the flesh, but rather, revealed in the form of flesh. The "Word became flesh and dwelt among us."

This means, God became flesh, period. The human flesh is what God became--not in an eternal sense, but in a temporal sense. But being that this flesh was being *generated from eternity* it is "co-eternal" with God, whether you call him the Son of God or the Son of Man.

36. One altogether, not by confusion of substance, but by unity of person.
37. For as the reasonable soul and flesh is one man, so God and man is one Christ;"

https://www.ccel.org/creeds/athanasian.creed.html

It seems to me that your position begins to confuse the substances.

No, I separate the substances into "infinite" and "finite," eternal and temporal. The eternal absorbs the temporal being as its superior. The finite is subsumed under, or absorbed into, the infinite Being of God with Christ. And that's because Christ is uniquely being generated *from eternity" by the eternal Word of God.

God identifies Christ's human personality as existing within and as corresponding to His own infinite Person or Being, and separates them as a necessary plurality of distinct Persons. They are separate Persons, but reflect the same Infinite Being of God.

One Person does not equal Three Persons. But we are talking about one infinite Being whose Person can be expressed in a plurality of finite Persons who are distinct from one another.

I had this same discussion with CRI briefly back in the 70s. We'll be at an impasse. Nobody can explain what an "Infinite Person" is...

 

[RandyK]

Jesus is the name given to the incarnate Son, the God-man. There was no God-man prior to Jesus being born of Mary. The divine Son, the second person of the Trinity, in the person of Jesus is coeternal, but his humanity is not.


I was actually responding to the other Randy.

My sincere apologies! Consider it my opportunity to propose ideas that have helped me for decades. I do like that you try to confine your most important responses to those who are truly heretical. Though we may have a few differences in language, I sincerely believe we have the same God, the same Christ, and the same Bible! ;)

Thanks

 

[RandyK]

Jesus is the name given to the incarnate Son, the God-man. There was no God-man prior to Jesus being born of Mary. The divine Son, the second person of the Trinity, in the person of Jesus is coeternal, but his humanity is not.

I would say that there is no such thing as the Person of Jesus unless we are talking about the 2nd Person of the Trinity. So, the Person of Jesus, together with his "humanity," is indeed "co-eternal" with God. He is a finite expression to be sure, but he is an expression that extends from out of eternity with God. As such, he is co-eternal with God.

Yes, Jesus didn't exist as a "God-Man" prior to his incarnation as a Man. But his expression as a Man *in time* extended from its origin in eternity. As such, he had a beginning in time as a Man, but that Man is an expression *from eternity.* As such, he is co-eternal with God even as a human revelation produced in time.

I was actually responding to the other Randy.

I got ya. Sorry, I hate that he has my name! ;) I do have a compulsion to want to explain the Trinity for myself. It is a kind of obsession with me. ;)

But we're on the same team, it seems obvious to me. A few different flips and we end up doing the same routine...

 

[Randy]

Jesus isn't coeternal, but the Son is. Your position cannot account for a simple and plain reading of John 1:1-18, 1 Cor. 8:6, Col. 1:16-17, Phil. 2:6-8, Heb. 1:2, 10-12, etc., and that's tragic, as those passages show that the Son is coeternal and coequal with the Father. John 1:1-2, 10, 14 and Phil. 2:6-8 are particularly vital in these discussions.

I believe Jesus has the "Fathers" nature in Him and was with the Father in the beginning and God brought the world into existence through Him and nothing you posted states otherwise.

John 1:18 -"begotten"

Jesus is the same yesterday, today and forever. If He's not coeternal then neither is the Son who was. But you all do seem to believe in a created Son of Man in Mary's womb. (Body & spirit) Thats why I ask what part of the Son who was descended and was in that body if not His own spirit. It seems your answers suggests to me none of Him. If the spirit of the Son who was descended into that body then all of Him.

 

[RandyK]

No, we should never separate them, but we shouldn't mix (confuse) them either. They're united without mixing, but they're not completely separate either.

Agreed.

Another issue with deifying his humanity, is that then he couldn't have died on the cross, because deity cannot die. That he did die shows that his humanity remained simply and fully human.

The argument is not that God, in His infinite Being, died on the cross. But God, in the form of Jesus, died on the cross. Nevertheless, Jesus was the infinite Being in the form of Man. This is a language problem, as opposed to a theological problem, in my opinion.

There are a number of other implications as well, such as then he would not have truly suffered from hunger or thirst. Hence his fasting and resulting temptation would have been meaningless--there couldn't have been any actual feelings of temptation since no real deprivation would have been felt.

The Greeks sometimes indicated that God was "impassible." But that would contradict the Incarnation. It depends on whether you're talking about God in His infinite Being, before expressing Himself in the finite world, or after that. Once God has assumed the form of a man, He certainly can experience pain, death, etc.

If his humanity was deified, then he actually wasn't "made like his brothers in every respect," and he couldn't have "suffered when tempted."

It depends on what you mean by his humanity being "deified." if you mean that Jesus stopped being a man in order to be God, of course we're in agreement. But that's not what I meant.

I meant that Jesus' full humanity, body, spirit, and behavior were all expressions of the infinite God as He assumed the form of a human expression. Then we can say, legitimately, that "God felt something in our world."

Thanks for the exchange. I'm not sure it accomplished much, but it was interesting...