Taking a look at the Statement of Faith

[Free]

Greetings in the Lord, Free, and thanks for your trouble-shooting help.
I will answer your questions, numbering them for easier reference.

1. There are three clauses. What is self-contradictory? [["in the original autographs" and "a complete and final written revelation from God", because we do not have the originals--which would be the finals.

There isn't really a contradiction. We don't have the autographs, but we know with a high degree of certainty that what we have is pretty much what the autographs stated. Being complete also means that there are no other books, no additional written revelation from God.

3. What creed? It's a statement of faith. [[Yes, but IMU one which attempts to state God's minimum requirement, (which I attempt to do in the 5-point creed I will share if desired), whereas a SOF is broader and includes some secondary doctrines]]

But, there are secondary doctrines mentioned, as you pointed out in your OP, in points 4 and 6. Doesn't that prove it is just a SoF and not a creed?

4. I wouldn't say that "desire for heaven is the biblical reason for faith God," but what detail should be added, and why? These aren't meant to be exhaustive. [[heaven = salvation from hell, and mention of eternal love, joy and peace could be added]]

5. Why elaboration? (re the Holy Spirit) [[Because "filled and empowered" is too vague and could be clarified by citing Scripture teaching that the purpose of the HS is to teach GW, and the presence of the HS is manifested by the fruit of the Spirit summarized as love (cf. Rom. 5;5, Gal. 5:22-23, John 13:35).

6. Why the need for clarification if its biblical? [[ My comment refers to the baptism of the Holy Spirit, but was this added by the poster? I did not discover the official CF SOF until later, and wish I had used that as the basis for my reply, but if 1Cor. 12:13 is what you have in mind, then it could be cited for clarity.]]

I have no idea what the person(s) had in mind. The verse I gave simply supported what I think they most likely were referring to.

The thing is, I've seen many statements of faith, for churches and other organizations, which are general statements and don't have any supporting verses.

 

[for_his_glory]

It is helpful that you posted that SOF, so we can compare it to my elaboration of the Christian creed, keeping in mind that the latter attempts to pare down the former so that in includes only content that is necessary to believe (the Gospel kerygma) at least implicitly in order to make a valid profession of faith.

1. This attempts to explain the Trinity, which is not requisite but rather can be learned following belief in the Gospel. The term "Creator" is implied but missing from my #1, so I will add it.
2. This attempts to explain Christ's birth and two natures, which like the Trinity is a complex doctrine that can be learned subsequent to believing the Gospel. The last sentence is good and essentially parallels what I say.
3. The HS is cited in my #5, because He indwells believers as the result of #3 & 4. Again, there is no need to explain the Trinity, but the description of His role is good.
4. This is true enough but rather watered down compared to my mention of misery and hell.
5. Like the Trinity, Biblical Inspiration is a secondary (didachaic) doctrine that does not need to be understood until after a person believes the NT Gospel, so it is not properly included in a creedal statement.
6. Ditto regarding the doctrine of the church.
7. This is relevant to the creed insofar as it expresses the reason salvation is needed: from what and to where.

Gotta go run some errands now, so TTYL.

Our learning begins the moment we are Spiritually born again and indwelled with the Holy Spirit as we continue to grow in the word of God. We are like babies at first just drinking in the milk of the word of God until we mature in understanding the word of God as we pray and ask the Holy Spirit to teach us all truths. The SOF gives us an outline of what faith is all about as we grow in the full knowledge of God.

 

[Groovy]

There isn't really a contradiction. We don't have the autographs, but we know with a high degree of certainty that what we have is pretty much what the autographs stated. Being complete also means that there are no other books, no additional written revelation from God.


But, there are secondary doctrines mentioned, as you pointed out in your OP, in points 4 and 6. Doesn't that prove it is just a SoF and not a creed?


I have no idea what the person(s) had in mind. The verse I gave simply supported what I think they most likely were referring to.

The thing is, I've seen many statements of faith, for churches and other organizations, which are general statements and don't have any supporting verses.

1. High degree and pretty much, yes; but the exact originals? Certainly not.
2. Secondary doctrines are typically included in a SOF, but not intentionally in a Creed.
3. IMO it is helpful and even necessary to discern the difference between the Creed or kerygma and a SOF for accurate interpretation of Scripture.
Ttyl

 

[Free]

1. High degree and pretty much, yes; but the exact originals? Certainly not.

Of course, but that doesn't mean there is a contradiction.

2. Secondary doctrines are typically included in a SOF, but not intentionally in a Creed.

Yes, which is why the SoF contains them.

3. IMO it is helpful and even necessary to discern the difference between the Creed or kerygma and a SOF for accurate interpretation of Scripture.
Ttyl

Okay, but this is a SoF, nothing more.

 

[Groovy]

Of course, but that doesn't mean there is a contradiction.


Yes, which is why the SoF contains them.


Okay, but this is a SoF, nothing more.

Yes, but it means there may be a contradiction, but in that regard let me run this train of thought by you:

Those who view the biblical canon as inspired by God disagree about what this means. Some people speak as though God dictated every word of the Bible to the human writers, which causes many atheists to be confused, because they do not realize that the dictation theory has several caveats, such as that it refers to the original manuscripts (which we do not have) correctly interpreted. And the key to correct interpretation is NOT viewing the Bible as a modern science or history textbook, but rather as concerned with communicating God’s will to humanity regarding His requirement for salvation: THAT is what is inerrant!

The salvationist view of inspiration seems more logical than the dictationist view according to the following train of thought: Suppose God Himself wrote the inerrant message to humanity: “Thou shalt not lie, steal, murder or fornicate.” Suppose the first manuscript copier accidentally left out the comma between lie and steal. Would that invalidate God’s commandment? No, but it is still a mistake and no longer perfectly inerrant. Now suppose an evil copier intentionally changed the word fornicate to fumigate. Would that invalidate God’s commandment? Not all of it; only the changed word. How could we know which word or words were correct and not changed? We would need to compare the commandment with other statements purported to be inspired by God in order to see what is the overall or consistent message, so that we can acquire sufficient evidence to have reasonable belief that the word fumigate should be discounted.

Finally, suppose that no one changed God’s original commandment. How could we know absolutely or infallibly that it was inerrant? We could not; we walk by faith. We would still need to compare it with the totality of truth in order to discover whether there were any inconsistencies. Thus, a completely inerrant Bible is not needed, as long as there is sufficient consistency in God’s messages to humanity via the creation (TOJ #4), the scriptures (TOJ #3), the incarnate word (TOJ #186) and logic (TOJ #182) for souls to discern God’s requirement for salvation.

Inspiration is like a river: God determines its banks so that the overall revelation each generation along its banks has includes truth sufficient regarding salvation (kerygma), but God allows the river of revelation to have eddies or discrepancies or minor errors that do not prevent God’s purpose from being accomplished (IS 55:10f, 1PT 1:10-12, HB 11:2-12:2).

This topic will conclude by considering the claim of contradictions in the Bible.

Apparent Contradiction Possible Resolution
MK 9:40 person not against is for person is a secret disciple
MT 12:30 person not with is against person is a Pharisee who views Jesus as blasphemous

JM 2:24 justified by faith with works faith produces fruit (v. 14-19)
RM 3:28 justified by faith apart from law faith is followed by fruit (GL 5:6, EPH 2:10)

LK 23:46 last words were “Father, into…” Jesus said both, but witnesses heard or remembered
JN 19:30 last words were “It is finished.” only one.

MK 10:46 a blind man There were two, but MK witness saw or remembered
MT 20:30 two blind men only one.

2SM 24:1 Lord incited David God allowed Satan to incite David.
1CHR 21:1 Satan incited David

GN 2:17 die on day sin is committed “die” refers to spiritual death or separation from God
GN 5:5 lived 930 years before dying

GN 7:2-3 seven pairs of clean animals the latter does not specify how many twos
GN 7:8-9 by twos

GN 20:11-12 Sarah is Abraham’s half sister law was not given until time of Moses
LV 20:17 brother should not marry sister

1KG 15:14 Asa did not remove high places Asa removed some but not all of them
2CHR 14:2-3 Asa removed the high places

JN 20:22 disciples received the Holy Spirit received is not necessarily filling
ACTS 2:1-4 disciples were filled by the H.S.

MT 5:44 love your enemies the latter speaks of not being pleased
MT 7:1 the Lord hated Esau

Questions & Conclusions:

Is the Bible verbally inspired? Extant versions contain God’s Word and Christians believe the POS is inspired.
Is the Bible literally true? Yes, in literal passages, & metaphorically true in allegorical parables & poems.
Is the Bible sufficiently inerrant? Yes, or else there is no hope for salvation, but it must be interpreted >>>>sufficiently correctly by fallible folks. (cf. HB 1:1-2, 2TM 3:16-17)

 

[MisterE]

2. This attempts to explain Christ's birth and two natures, which like the Trinity is a complex doctrine that can be learned subsequent to believing the Gospel. The last sentence is good and essentially parallels what I say.

I see Jesus' two natures as false. Jesus had a divine nature (he is God) but his human composition was like Jesus was in his Christophanes as he appeared in the OT. Jesus did not have two natures as if he were two people. The Second Person (note the singular) of the Trinity is God the Son (singular). Christ chose to put aside some of his divine attributes so he could FUNCTION as a human. He took on human flesh, but not human consciousness, or a human will, or human intelligence. Jesus, I don't know how else to explain him, without using analogies. The incarnation is real, and Jesus was indeed flesh, and functioned as a human, but he was always God as far as his soul is concerned. If you want to respond, please don't do so with sarcasm.

 

[Free]

I see Jesus' two natures as false. Jesus had a divine nature (he is God) but his human composition was like Jesus was in his Christophanes as he appeared in the OT. Jesus did not have two natures as if he were two people. The Second Person (note the singular) of the Trinity is God the Son (singular). Christ chose to put aside some of his divine attributes so he could FUNCTION as a human. He took on human flesh, but not human consciousness, or a human will, or human intelligence. Jesus, I don't know how else to explain him, without using analogies. The incarnation is real, and Jesus was indeed flesh, and functioned as a human, but he was always God as far as his soul is concerned. If you want to respond, please don't do so with sarcasm.

I think the only truly biblical understanding of Jesus is two natures in one person. To say what you have is to have Jesus not fully human, and is somewhere between the age-old heresies of Apollinarianism and Monophysitism, perhaps even Adoptionism.

Luk 22:41 And he withdrew from them about a stone's throw, and knelt down and prayed,
Luk 22:42 saying, “Father, if you are willing, remove this cup from me. Nevertheless, not my will, but yours, be done.” (ESV)

If Jesus didn't have a human will, then that would mean the God the Son's will could be different than God the Father's, and that is highly problematic. As God, the Son's will would always have been, and will always be, in perfect harmony with the Father's.

Php 2:5 Have this mind among yourselves, which is yours in Christ Jesus,
Php 2:6 who, though he was in the form of God, did not count equality with God a thing to be grasped,
Php 2:7 but emptied himself, by taking the form of a servant, being born in the likeness of men.
Php 2:8 And being found in human form, he humbled himself by becoming obedient to the point of death, even death on a cross. (ESV)

Just as being "in the form of God" means he was God in nature, that is, truly and fully God, the same must be said about Jesus being in "the form of a servant," "in human form." If the latter means he wasn't actually truly and full human, then we cannot say that he is truly and fully God.

It also becomes problematic for his saving work. How could he have been a substitute for humanity if he wasn't truly and fully human? How could he be our advocate before the Father if he wasn't truly human, as it means he wouldn't have truly felt the full force of temptation and so could not sympathize with us in our weaknesses?

Heb 4:15 For we do not have a high priest who is unable to sympathize with our weaknesses, but one who in every respect has been tempted as we are, yet without sin.
Heb 4:16 Let us then with confidence draw near to the throne of grace, that we may receive mercy and find grace to help in time of need. (ESV)

There are a number of issues that arise.

 

[MisterE]

I think the only truly biblical understanding of Jesus is two natures in one person. To say what you have is to have Jesus not fully human, and is somewhere between the age-old heresies of Apollinarianism and Monophysitism, perhaps even Adoptionism.

Luk 22:41 And he withdrew from them about a stone's throw, and knelt down and prayed,
Luk 22:42 saying, “Father, if you are willing, remove this cup from me. Nevertheless, not my will, but yours, be done.” (ESV)

This actually has the sense "Nevertheless, not my will only, but your will also be done." This is an expression of their unity and Christ submission to the Father.

If Jesus didn't have a human will, then that would mean the God the Son's will could be different than God the Father's, and that is highly problematic. As God, the Son's will would always have been, and will always be, in perfect harmony with the Father's.

Php 2:5 Have this mind among yourselves, which is yours in Christ Jesus,
Php 2:6 who, though he was in the form of God, did not count equality with God a thing to be grasped,
Php 2:7 but emptied himself, by taking the form of a servant, being born in the likeness of men.
Php 2:8 And being found in human form, he humbled himself by becoming obedient to the point of death, even death on a cross. (ESV)

Just as being "in the form of God" means he was God in nature, that is, truly and fully God, the same must be said about Jesus being in "the form of a servant," "in human form." If the latter means he wasn't actually truly and full human, then we cannot say that he is truly and fully God.

Jesus only came in the FORM of a servant, and this happen because Jesus laid aside some of his divine attributes. You start with God the Son, then he divests himself of divine attributes, then he took on the form of a servant by subtraction (from deity). He didn't start as human and add to his nature.

It also becomes problematic for his saving work. How could he have been a substitute for humanity if he wasn't truly and fully human? How could he be our advocate before the Father if he wasn't truly human, as it means he wouldn't have truly felt the full force of temptation and so could not sympathize with us in our weaknesses?

Heb 4:15 For we do not have a high priest who is unable to sympathize with our weaknesses, but one who in every respect has been tempted as we are, yet without sin.
Heb 4:16 Let us then with confidence draw near to the throne of grace, that we may receive mercy and find grace to help in time of need. (ESV)

There are a number of issues that arise.

where do we see in scripture that Christ had to be FULLY human? One example stands out, Jesus was tempted but without sin. That is the polar opposite of a human.

I made up a story that explains why Jesus could not have sinned. I will give you the condensed version. As you know, many believers believe that Christ could have sinned otherwise the temptations were not real. So, suppose Christ did sin, he would become a sinner (I speak as a human). Now, all is not lost. The Father could die for all the sins of humans, including Jesus. Bear with me here, this is just for illustrative purposes (I don't believe that Christ could have sinned since there is no possible outcome to that. The statement is irrational). and to really condense this, let's assume that the Father took on a fully human nature and he too sinned. And then batting clean up the Holy Spirit is the only possible savior for the Father and Jesus. Suppose further that the Holy Spirit sinned, I mean if they had a human nature and because of that they could sin, we are now without a God in this universe.

Now obviously this story only illustrates an impossible irrational outcome. There is no answer to what if Jesus could have sinned. This story was given to show how irrational it would be to believe that Christ could have sinned. No, Christ did not have two natures, that too would be irrational.
Finally, I asked James White (who wrote an excellent book defeating the KJV only position) if Jesus could have carried on a conversation with his other nature. He said, "I guess I would have to hold that."

Some people hold to a position even though the very position itself can be shown to be irrational.

BTW, I appreciate your answering my first post.

 

[Groovy]

I see Jesus' two natures as false. Jesus had a divine nature (he is God) but his human composition was like Jesus was in his Christophanes as he appeared in the OT. Jesus did not have two natures as if he were two people. The Second Person (note the singular) of the Trinity is God the Son (singular). Christ chose to put aside some of his divine attributes so he could FUNCTION as a human. He took on human flesh, but not human consciousness, or a human will, or human intelligence. Jesus, I don't know how else to explain him, without using analogies. The incarnation is real, and Jesus was indeed flesh, and functioned as a human, but he was always God as far as his soul is concerned. If you want to respond, please don't do so with sarcasm.

Thanks for illustrating why understanding Christ's natures is not part of the creed.
When have I ever responded to anyone "with sarcasm"? (post #?)
I see Free has responded, so I will see what y'all say, but remember
that humanness was created by God and deemed to be very good.

 

[MisterE]

Thanks for illustrating why understanding Christ's natures is not part of the creed.
When have I ever responded to anyone "with sarcasm"? (post #?)
I see Free has responded, so I will see what y'all say, but remember
that humanness was created by God and deemed to be very good.

I never said you were sarcastic. I merely said that if anyone wants to respond to this post, please don't be sarcastic. Sarcasm is quite the norm on forums.

 

[Groovy]

I never said you were sarcastic. I merely said that if anyone wants to respond to this post, please don't be sarcastic. Sarcasm is quite the norm on forums.

Oh, whew! You had me worried for a moment, but please reprove me if I ever seem sarcastic.

Regarding Jesus' natures, I agree that He is God in the human dimension/incarnate, and I agree that Jesus did not have two natures as if he were two people. I explain the doctrine of the Trinity as follows:

The OT Shema (DT 6:4) teaches that God is one, and the NT also affirms that there is one God (EPH 4:6, 1TM 2:5). However, the NT teaches that God relates to believers in three ways simultaneously: as the Father, as the Son and as the Holy Spirit (1 x 1 x 1=1).

The Father/Parenthood of God is indicated in Jesus’ model prayer (MT 6:9), throughout the Gospel of John (3:35, 5:17-18, etc.), and in the epistles of Paul (RM 4:11, 8:15, PHP 2:11). God the Father and Christ’s Sonship are discussed in Hebrews 1:1-4. The Son of God also is mentioned by John (JN 1:14, 3:16, etc.) and by Paul (RM 1:4, GL 2:20, 1THS 1:10). The Holy Spirit is mentioned in three successive chapters in John (JN 14:26, 15:26, 16:13), frequently in the book of Acts (ACTS 1:5, 2:4, 9:17, 13:2, 19:2), and in many of Paul’s letters (RM 8:4-26, 1CR 6:19, EPH 4:30) as well as in some of the other epistles (2PT 1:21, JUDE 20).

It might be helpful to discern which aspect of the triune God is the subject of various biblical statements. These divine aspects or “persons” may be distinguished by role: God the Father as creator or initiator (GN 1:1), God the Son as Messiah or mediator (1TM 2:5), and God the Spirit as indweller (RM 5:5). For example, 1 John 4:7 says love comes from (is initiated by) God (the Father), Galatians 5:22 says that love is a fruit of the (indwelling) Spirit, and Ephesians 3:18 speaks of the (mediating) love of Christ (RM 5:8, EPH 2:18).

We can denote these distinctions by the use of three prepositions: God the Father is over all creation (EPH 4:6), God the Son is Immanuel or with humanity (MT 1:23), and the Holy Spirit is within all believers (EPH 1:13). A single passage that comes closest to indicating this distinction is Ephesians 3:14-19, in which Paul prays to the Father that through His Spirit of love Christ would dwell in believers’ hearts (also see 1CR 8:6).

When the Bible uses masculine words for God, it should be understood that only God the Son is human and had a sexual orientation while on earth. GN 1:26-27 states that both male and female were created in God’s image, referring not to androgyny but to personality, and Jesus said (in MT 22:30 & 19:11-12) that there is no marriage and thus no need for sexuality in heaven.

Regarding intelligence, Jesus indicated in a few places that he was not omniscient was incarnate, but I am not comfortable viewing Jesus as having a soul, because that does seem too separate.

What do you think of my explanation of the Trinity?

 

[Hidden In Him]

Those who view the biblical canon as inspired by God disagree about what this means. Some people speak as though God dictated every word of the Bible to the human writers, which causes many atheists to be confused, because they do not realize that the dictation theory has several caveats, such as that it refers to the original manuscripts (which we do not have) correctly interpreted. And the key to correct interpretation is NOT viewing the Bible as a modern science or history textbook, but rather as concerned with communicating God’s will to humanity regarding His requirement for salvation: THAT is what is inerrant!

The salvationist view of inspiration seems more logical than the dictationist view according to the following train of thought: Suppose God Himself wrote the inerrant message to humanity: “Thou shalt not lie, steal, murder or fornicate.” Suppose the first manuscript copier accidentally left out the comma between lie and steal. Would that invalidate God’s commandment? No, but it is still a mistake and no longer perfectly inerrant. Now suppose an evil copier intentionally changed the word fornicate to fumigate. Would that invalidate God’s commandment? Not all of it; only the changed word. How could we know which word or words were correct and not changed? We would need to compare the commandment with other statements purported to be inspired by God in order to see what is the overall or consistent message, so that we can acquire sufficient evidence to have reasonable belief that the word fumigate should be discounted.

Finally, suppose that no one changed God’s original commandment. How could we know absolutely or infallibly that it was inerrant? We could not; we walk by faith. We would still need to compare it with the totality of truth in order to discover whether there were any inconsistencies. Thus, a completely inerrant Bible is not needed, as long as there is sufficient consistency in God’s messages to humanity via the creation (TOJ #4), the scriptures (TOJ #3), the incarnate word (TOJ #186) and logic (TOJ #182) for souls to discern God’s requirement for salvation.

Inspiration is like a river: God determines its banks so that the overall revelation each generation along its banks has includes truth sufficient regarding salvation (kerygma), but God allows the river of revelation to have eddies or discrepancies or minor errors that do not prevent God’s purpose from being accomplished (IS 55:10f, 1PT 1:10-12, HB 11:2-12:2).

My view on inerrancy is similar to this, actually. He did not give us a book to lead us into all truth, He gave us His Spirit, and it is He who reveals accurate readings vs. inaccurate readings, accurate interpretations vs. inaccurate interpretations. There is no translation in existence which does not reflect human interpretation in some way, so to think we can take humanity (and hence errancy) out of the Bible is essentially a fallacy on its face. But it does not shake the inherency of God's Spirit in knowing truth from falsehood with 100% accuracy, so it is the Spirit we need to be relying upon as inerrant, not what He has used dozens of different men to record, and hundreds upon hundreds (if not thousands) of men to interpret and translate into various languages over the last 500 years.

 

[Hidden In Him]

Regarding intelligence, Jesus indicated in a few places that he was not omniscient was incarnate, but I am not comfortable viewing Jesus as having a soul, because that does seem too separate.

Why would you not think Jesus has a soul?

A few other questions if I may:

- Are you attempting to isolate what would be the essential tenets a person needed to believe and accept in order to be truly saved, or just establishing what are the basic and established tenets of Christianity?

- What is your position on Cessationism?

 

[Groovy]

My view on inerrancy is similar to this, actually. He did not give us a book to lead us into all truth, He gave us His Spirit, and it is He who reveals accurate readings vs. inaccurate readings, accurate interpretations vs. inaccurate interpretations. There is no translation in existence which does not reflect human interpretation in some way, so to think we can take humanity (and hence errancy) out of the Bible is essentially a fallacy on its face. But it does not shake the inherency of God's Spirit in knowing truth from falsehood with 100% accuracy, so it the Spirit we need to be relying upon as inerrant, not what He has used dozens of different men to record, and hundreds upon hundreds (if not thousands) of men to interpret and translate into various languages over the last 500 years.

Yes, and given the fact that the history of producing the extant biblical canon is akin to making sausage,
I encourage everyone to avoid bibliolatry by being content with confidence in the sufficiency of Scripture for salvation rather than to cling to absolute certainty and inerrancy like a fetish or idol, and let us not claim papal infallibility for the revelations of the Holy Spirit. (Cf. 2 Kings 23:24, Hosea 3:4 and Zechariah 10:2.)
We live by faith, not by sight (2Cor. 5:7).

 

[Hidden In Him]

and let us not claim papal infallibility for the revelations of the Holy Spirit.

Actually I think they only claim inerrancy for selected statements of doctrine, but as a rule it is not a good habit to keep in any context.

Did you read Post #73? I was curious for your answers there.

 

[Free]

This actually has the sense "Nevertheless, not my will only, but your will also be done." This is an expression of their unity and Christ submission to the Father.

The Greek more or less says, "Yet not the will of me but of you be done."

https://biblehub.com/interlinear/luke/22.htm

Besides, the first half of the verse--"“Father, if you are willing, remove this cup from me"--rather makes it unlikely that the second half "is an expression of their unity." It would make no sense of unity, as the Son would already be in agreement with the Father, making the statement meaningless. It really only makes sense if Christ had a full human nature, with his own will.

We also have:

Mat 26:39 And going a little farther he fell on his face and prayed, saying, “My Father, if it be possible, let this cup pass from me; nevertheless, not as I will, but as you will.” (ESV)

Jesus only came in the FORM of a servant, and this happen because Jesus laid aside some of his divine attributes.

But, as I clearly pointed out, Paul contrasts being in the "form of a servant" with being "in the form of God." They both must be saying the same thing about a different form. If "in the from of God" is speaking about his full nature as God, and it is, then it necessarily follows that being "in the form of a servant" speaks of his full nature as a man.

We can't say that being "in the form of servant" means that he was "only . . . in the FORM of a servant," as though he is somehow less than fully human, without also then having to say that being "in the form of God" means is somehow less than fully God. It actually makes Paul's main point vague and meaningless.

You start with God the Son, then he divests himself of divine attributes, then he took on the form of a servant by subtraction (from deity). He didn't start as human and add to his nature.

There is nothing to suggest that "he took on the form of a servant by subtraction (from deity)." What it does clearly say is that he "emptied himself, by taking the form of a servant, being born in the likeness of men." That is a paradoxical emptying by addition, by adding human nature, which is naturally going to put limits on his glory.

Interestingly, Jesus still claimed, of all things, omnipresence (Matt. 18:20).

where do we see in scripture that Christ had to be FULLY human? One example stands out, Jesus was tempted but without sin. That is the polar opposite of a human.

He was both fully God and fully man. If he wasn't fully human, then his temptations are meaningless--"God cannot be tempted with evil" (James 1:13, ESV).

I made up a story that explains why Jesus could not have sinned. I will give you the condensed version. As you know, many believers believe that Christ could have sinned otherwise the temptations were not real. So, suppose Christ did sin, he would become a sinner (I speak as a human). Now, all is not lost. The Father could die for all the sins of humans, including Jesus. Bear with me here, this is just for illustrative purposes (I don't believe that Christ could have sinned since there is no possible outcome to that. The statement is irrational). and to really condense this, let's assume that the Father took on a fully human nature and he too sinned. And then batting clean up the Holy Spirit is the only possible savior for the Father and Jesus. Suppose further that the Holy Spirit sinned, I mean if they had a human nature and because of that they could sin, we are now without a God in this universe.

Now obviously this story only illustrates an impossible irrational outcome. There is no answer to what if Jesus could have sinned. This story was given to show how irrational it would be to believe that Christ could have sinned.

As one of my profs once said, "Asking if Jesus could have sinned is the wrong question and it will lead to heresy. The question is: Did he feel the full force of sin?" The answer to that is, yes. And it can only be so if he was truly human.

No, Christ did not have two natures, that too would be irrational.

Yes, you only claim so and have not proven that to be the case.

Finally, I asked James White (who wrote an excellent book defeating the KJV only position)

Yes, I have his also excellent book, The Forgotten Trinity.

if Jesus could have carried on a conversation with his other nature. He said, "I guess I would have to hold that."

I don't think that would be the case. That would require two persons; he is one person with two natures. That is one of the mysteries of the faith--it's what the Bible shows--and we must be very careful to no overstep and try and explain something the Bible doesn't fully explain.

Some people hold to a position even though the very position itself can be shown to be irrational.

Many people haven't been taught critical thinking or good theology.

BTW, I appreciate your answering my first post.

I don't think I did. Maybe I should.

 

[Free]

Yes, and given the fact that the history of producing the extant biblical canon is akin to making sausage,

How so?

We live by faith, not by sight (2Cor. 5:7).

And also "by every word that comes from the mouth of God" (Matt 4:4; Deut 8:3). It is that that our faith is based on.