The Highway Forums General Discussion Theology Discussion Forum 2 questions: Trinity, Incarnation

Hodge makes a similar analogy:

A study of this sort certainly treads upon Holy ground...but as Pink states..in Mediatorial Union.... “Right thoughts of Him are to be esteemed far above all silver and gold.”

Dave

When Pilgrim misspoke, he actually articulated the true doctrine of the Reformed Church. The Reformed accept the words, "one person and subsistence" of the Chalcedon Creed but deny its meaning. Pilgrim even contends that the Son of God and the Son of Man are physically separate beings contrary to Chalcedon, "not as parted or separated into two persons."

The Reformed also misunderstand the Chalcedon "without confusion, without change, without division, without separation; the distinction of natures being in no way annulled by the union, but rather the characteristics of each nature being preserved". The characteristics of each nature are preserved and are never mingled, changed, or confused with the other nature.

However, that does not mean there is no communication of the attributes. The Lutheran Concordists use the analogy of iron being heated in a fire. The heat is communicated to the iron but the iron does not give up any of the properties of iron and heat remains a property of the fire. So the characteristics of each nature are preserved without change, division or separation.

If Christ lived, suffered, and died only as a man as the Reform propose, He would be a poor Savior. He would be unable conquer sin, death, and the Devil and atone for the infinite offense of the world of sin and sinners. But, in Him dwells all fulness of the Godhead bodily. He has all power and all knowledge, is always present as He has promised, and His Holy precious blood cleanses us from all sin.

And here, dear people, is another perfect example of what happens when you become sold out to a denomination and its official documents and "Sola Scriptura" becomes nothing more than a by-word with no real practical use. In fact, it would appear that studying the Bible is not something which is to be cherished. I see more Romanism than Lutheranism in your responses, speratus!

First of all I have NEVER even hinted that there were two separate "beings" in Christ Jesus. The distinctions I have made have been crystal clear and true to Chalcedon; e.g., there are two NATURES in the one PERSON. So, you have misconstrued what I've written many times over in my replies.

Second, due to your lack of Biblical knowledge, you have made a faux pas, not realizing that the phrases "Son of God" and "Son of Man" can be synonymous in Scripture. In the O.T., the phrase, "Son of Man" also referred to deity. (cf. Dan 7:13, 14) and in the N.T. the phrase, taken from the O.T. usage likewise refers to deity. (cf. Matt 9:6; 10:23; 12:8; 13:41; 16:27, 28; Jh 3:13; et al). Further, it would not be correct to refer to the human nature of Christ as the "son of man" for indeed His origin was of the Holy Spirit and not Joseph. <img src="/forum/images/graemlins/wink.gif" alt="" />

So again, the "Son of God", i.e., the second person of the Trinity is equal with God and is God (Jh 1:1) and thus possesses the INcommunicable attributes of Omnipresence, Omnipotence, and Omniscience. When He took upon human flesh, the Son of God remained fully God and His deity was never intermixed with the human nature with which He co-existed in the one Person.

On that note I shall leave you to your musings and your Lutheran authors on this subject. I much prefer to spend my time in Scripture and discussing Scripture. <img src="/forum/images/graemlins/evilgrin.gif" alt="" />

In His Grace,

They are synonymous in Scripture. That was my point. If I misstated your position, I apologize. Since you said the divine nature resides where the human nature does not and there is no communication between them, I assumed you meant there were two beings.

I also tire of this. I am withdrawing from active discussion except to answer specific questions.

Just a quick rebuttal and then I'm off. <img src="/forum/images/graemlins/grin.gif" alt="" /> I have NEVER said that there was "no communication" between the two natures. <img src="/forum/images/graemlins/rolleyes2.gif" alt="" /> What I have insisted upon is that the INCOMMUNICABLE attributes of the Son of God; the divine nature in Christ, are just that... IN-communicable, i.e., they cannot be shared, delegated, etc., with finite man nor with anything else that has been created by God. They belong to Him and Him alone since there is but one GOD. I also stated quite succinctly, that the COMMUNICABLE attributes, which all men are given to one degree or another were also given and possessed by the human nature of Christ.

Perhaps you are so obsessed with seeing everyone outside of your little group, aka: "the one true Church" to the exclusion of every other on earth, that you are blinded to not only the truth but you can't even read someone's words without twisting them so that they can be found erroneous from which you then create a strawman you can burn them at the stake? <img src="/forum/images/graemlins/scratchchin.gif" alt="" /> Doubtless, I have enough errors in my thinking that I have no need of someone like yourself fabricating more of them which I do not believe. <img src="/forum/images/graemlins/wink.gif" alt="" />

I seriously doubt that Martin Luther treated Calvin or his writings in the manner you do mine and others here. Nor do I have any doubt that Luther actually believed that he and he alone was infallible and that his followers were the "only true Church". So, if I may be so bold as to suggest but something else to you . . . that if you are going to follow an earthly man, that you at least emulate some of the virtues which his possessed.

In His Grace,

Just a quick comment on your rebuttal. I did miss the distinction between no communication at all and no communication of divine attributes to the human nature for which I apologize.