Please explain

[DeaconDean]

"Christ was syngeristic".

God Bless

Till all are one.

 

[OzSpen]

"Christ was syngeristic".

God Bless

Till all are one.

Dean,

I hope you mean synergistic and not your spelling.

Would you please explain further? What do you mean when you say that 'Christ is synergistic'?

Oz

 

[DeaconDean]

Dean,

I hope you mean synergistic and not your spelling.

Would you please explain further? What do you mean when you say that 'Christ is synergistic'?

Oz

You are correct. My fingers were moving faster than my mind.

That was a statement made by an Eastern Orthodox member.

Jesus' divine "side"/"nature" was (using synergistic definition as the base) was dependent on His human "side"/"nature" to co-operate together to accomplish God's goals and will.

God Bless

Till all are one.

 

[98cwitr]

Any Scriptural evidence to support said claim?

 

[OzSpen]

You are correct. My fingers were moving faster than my mind.

That was a statement made by an Eastern Orthodox member.

Jesus' divine "side"/"nature" was (using synergistic definition as the base) was dependent on His human "side"/"nature" to co-operate together to accomplish God's goals and will.

God Bless

Till all are one.

What is the definition of synergism that you are using?

 

[Skala]

Any Scriptural evidence to support said claim?

Of course not.

In fact, such a statement is absurd given what Jesus taught:

no one knows the Son except the Father, and no one knows the Father except the Son and anyone to whom the Son chooses to reveal him. Matt 11:27

 

[DeaconDean]

Being as since this was a statement made in Soteriology, and given the history, I used the definition (per Soteriology).

Man co-operating with God to bring about their salvation.

Of course I know Jesus didn't need salvation, but as stated before, the statement was made, Christ was synergistic". Meaning, per this person, Christ's human "side"/"nature, had to co-operate with His divine "side"/"nature".

That, I just cannot, and do not accept.

God Bless

Till all are one.

 

[PrincetonGuy]

Being as since this was a statement made in Soteriology, and given the history, I used the definition (per Soteriology).

Man co-operating with God to bring about their salvation.

Of course I know Jesus didn't need salvation, but as stated before, the statement was made, Christ was synergistic". Meaning, per this person, Christ's human "side"/"nature, had to co-operate with His divine "side"/"nature".

That, I just cannot, and do not accept.

God Bless

Till all are one.

From my point of view, the two natures of Christ had to cooperate with each other. His divine nature had to cooperate with His human nature, because without his human nature, He could not have died on the cross for our sins. His human nature had to cooperate with his divine nature, because without his divine nature, He would not have been willing to die on the cross.

 

[DeaconDean]

From my point of view, the two natures of Christ had to cooperate with each other. His divine nature had to cooperate with His human nature, because without his human nature, He could not have died on the cross for our sins. His human nature had to cooperate with his divine nature, because without his divine nature, He would not have been willing to die on the cross.

True, but...

The attributes of God extend to God the man, Jesus, and as such, even though His "human" side/nature was in all respects tempted the same as you and I, yet He did not sin.

Being as since Jesu was/is the God/man, His divine nature would have allowed Him to see the results of any "sin" He might have been possible to commit. And if He would have, then He could never have been our Savior.

And here again, show mer in scripture where Jesus needed the co-operation of His human "side/"nature" to perform and of His healings.

Show me in scripture, where Jesus needed His human "side"/"nature" to raise the dead.

Show me in scripture where Jesus needed the co-operation of His human "side"/"nature" to walk on the water.

Now we do get a glimpse of Jesus' human side in the prayer in the garden, but nevertheless, it was still subject to God's diven plan.

"Not my will, but thy will be done."

I do not see it. Jesus knew, when He left heaven to what purpose, and to what end He would meet. And His human "side"/"nature" could not thwart it.

Sorry friend, but I do disagree.

God Bless

Till all are one.

 

[PrincetonGuy]

Show me in scripture, where Jesus needed His human "side"/"nature" to….

Do you deny that Jesus needed his human side to die on the cross for your sins? He may have not needed His human side to do everything, but he certainly needed his human side to do many of the things that he did.

 

[nonaeroterraqueous]

Yes, but Jesus never had a fallen nature. The whole debate between synergism and monergism hinges on the question as to whether a fallen man can, by his own initiative, pursue a faith in God. Alternately, we could question whether Jesus had the ability to arbitrarily turn from God and become a fallen man, but if he's part of the Trinity, then he could not turn from God or become a fallen man. The terms don't even apply, here. If Christ is God become man, then we don't even have two parties involved. There's no point in arguing whether the two parties cooperated with each other, if there's really only one party.

 

[DeaconDean]

Do you deny that Jesus needed his human side to die on the cross for your sins? He may have not needed His human side to do everything, but he certainly needed his human side to do many of the things that he did.

Here again, that is not the question.

That isn't even close.

God Bless

Till all are one.

 

[DeaconDean]

Yes, but Jesus never had a fallen nature. The whole debate between synergism and monergism hinges on the question as to whether a fallen man can, by his own initiative, pursue a faith in God. Alternately, we could question whether Jesus had the ability to arbitrarily turn from God and become a fallen man, but if he's part of the Trinity, then he could not turn from God or become a fallen man. The terms don't even apply, here. If Christ is God become man, then we don't even have two parties involved. There's no point in arguing whether the two parties cooperated with each other, if there's really only one party.

Finally

God Bless

Till all are one.

 

[PrincetonGuy]

Yes, but Jesus never had a fallen nature. The whole debate between synergism and monergism hinges on the question as to whether a fallen man can, by his own initiative, pursue a faith in God. Alternately, we could question whether Jesus had the ability to arbitrarily turn from God and become a fallen man, but if he's part of the Trinity, then he could not turn from God or become a fallen man. The terms don't even apply, here. If Christ is God become man, then we don't even have two parties involved. There's no point in arguing whether the two parties cooperated with each other, if there's really only one party.

Two entirely different concepts are being confused in this post. The biblical and historical doctrine of synergism as it is often called today is the doctrine that the sinner cooperates with the Holy Spirit in his salvation. The fact that the two natures of Christ cooperate with one another has also been called s synergism in this thread, but it has absolutely nothing to do with the other synergism. The word synergism was first used by chemists, and then medical researches, and now for just about any cooperative relationship. For a lengthy, scholarly work on the synergism involved in the two natures of Christ, see the following classical study:

De Duabus Naturis in Christo by the Lutheran theologian and Reformer Martin Chemnitrz published in Leipzig in 1578.

English translations of this work by J. A. O. Preus abound, both in print and in electronic formats, including PDF files.

 

[Avid]

Yes, but Jesus never had a fallen nature. The whole debate between synergism and monergism hinges on the question as to whether a fallen man can, by his own initiative, pursue a faith in God. Alternately, we could question whether Jesus had the ability to arbitrarily turn from God and become a fallen man, but if he's part of the Trinity, then he could not turn from God or become a fallen man.

The whole thing of Jesus having a heavenly Father and not an earthly Father has to do with God being with us (Immanuel.) Because of this, there is the unique setting where He did not inherit an sinful, fallen, Human Nature. I don't see the ability or even a question of God ever exploring what He stated He hates, and came to reconcile by the new birth.

The idea presented in this thread is interesting, though I never thought of using that term. It is an interesting concept of how God inhabited a human body, and subjected Himself to all the frailties of that body. Many people have trouble with the concept of God actually learning something. How would He not learn, being in a different situation that ever He had been?

Hebrews 5
7 Who in the days of his flesh, when he had offered up prayers and supplications with strong crying and tears unto him that was able to save him from death, and was heard in that he feared;
8 Though he were a Son, yet learned he obedience by the things which he suffered;
9 And being made perfect, he became the author of eternal salvation unto all them that obey him;
​

I do not see a difficulty with this term from the OP, but never looked at it that particular way.

The terms don't even apply, here. If Christ is God become man, then we don't even have two parties involved. There's no point in arguing whether the two parties cooperated with each other, if there's really only one party.

There is specifically a glorified being inside the uncomely, and frail human that walk this Earth as Jesus Christ our LORD. The transfiguration showed the closest disciples that glory, and encouraged our LORD by Moses and Elijah.
.

 

[DeaconDean]

The whole thing of Jesus having a heavenly Father and not an earthly Father has to do with God being with us (Immanuel.) Because of this, there is the unique setting where He did not inherit an sinful, fallen, Human Nature. I don't see the ability or even a question of God ever exploring what He stated He hates, and came to reconcile by the new birth.

The idea presented in this thread is interesting, though I never thought of using that term. It is an interesting concept of how God inhabited a human body, and subjected Himself to all the frailties of that body. Many people have trouble with the concept of God actually learning something. How would He not learn, being in a different situation that ever He had been?

Hebrews 5
7 Who in the days of his flesh, when he had offered up prayers and supplications with strong crying and tears unto him that was able to save him from death, and was heard in that he feared;
8 Though he were a Son, yet learned he obedience by the things which he suffered;
9 And being made perfect, he became the author of eternal salvation unto all them that obey him;
​

I do not see a difficulty with this term from the OP, but never looked at it that particular way.


There is specifically a glorified being inside the uncomely, and frail human that walk this Earth as Jesus Christ our LORD. The transfiguration showed the closest disciples that glory, and encouraged our LORD by Moses and Elijah.
.

Here again, from the Eastern Orthodox P.O.V., Jesus had to have the "co-operation" of His human "side"/"nature" to accomplish everything. Thus, Jesus was "synergistic".

God Bless

Till all are one.

 

[DeaconDean]

Two entirely different concepts are being confused in this post. The biblical and historical doctrine of synergism as it is often called today is the doctrine that the sinner cooperates with the Holy Spirit in his salvation. The fact that the two natures of Christ cooperate with one another has also been called s synergism in this thread, but it has absolutely nothing to do with the other synergism. The word synergism was first used by chemists, and then medical researches, and now for just about any cooperative relationship. For a lengthy, scholarly work on the synergism involved in the two natures of Christ, see the following classical study:

De Duabus Naturis in Christo by the Lutheran theologian and Reformer Martin Chemnitrz published in Leipzig in 1578.

English translations of this work by J. A. O. Preus abound, both in print and in electronic formats, including PDF files.

Preaching to the choir here.

Yes, Jesus in His God-man state, had to go to the cross and offer up His body as the perfect sacrifice, The perfect lamb.

But here again, He knew this before He left heaven, He already knew to what end He was going to meet.

Did He need His human "side"/"nature" to "co-operate/work together" (The term synergy comes from the Greek word synergia συνέργεια from synergos, συνεργός, meaning "working together" Definition) together (synergistic) to accomplish God's master plan?

NO!

But here again, that does not negate the fact that I was told by an Eastern Orthodox member that Jesus needed the "co-operation" (synergistic) of His human "side"/"nature" to accomplish God's will (which would have included the working of the miracles).

No sir, I do not accept it.

God Bless

Till all are one.

 

[nonaeroterraqueous]

Two entirely different concepts are being confused in this post. The biblical and historical doctrine of synergism as it is often called today is the doctrine that the sinner cooperates with the Holy Spirit in his salvation. The fact that the two natures of Christ cooperate with one another has also been called s synergism in this thread, but it has absolutely nothing to do with the other synergism.

Two homonyms, and both of them have theological meanings? There should be a law against that. It's a wonder we can even communicate.

 

[PrincetonGuy]

Preaching to the choir here.

Yes, Jesus in His God-man state, had to go to the cross and offer up His body as the perfect sacrifice, The perfect lamb.

But here again, He knew this before He left heaven, He already knew to what end He was going to meet.

Did He need His human "side"/"nature" to "co-operate/work together" (The term synergy comes from the Greek word synergia συνέργεια from synergos, συνεργός, meaning "working together" Definition) together (synergistic) to accomplish God's master plan?

NO!

But here again, that does not negate the fact that I was told by an Eastern Orthodox member that Jesus needed the "co-operation" (synergistic) of His human "side"/"nature" to accomplish God's will (which would have included the working of the miracles).

No sir, I do not accept it.

God Bless

Till all are one.

Jesus, in His humanity, died on the cross for our sins, but was He a mere human being while on the cross? He preached to the multitudes using his physical body, but was He a mere human being while preaching?

 

[Hentenza]

"Christ was syngeristic".

God Bless

Till all are one.

If that was the case then His human nature would be working against His divine nature. No such thing in scripture.