The dual effort in the creation of the God-Man

[BCsenior]

In truth it is a way of strutting academic pride
in the knowledge of the person calling something heresy.

You don't believe there have been (and still are) heretical anti-Christian doctrines,
which people need to be warned about?

 

[AlexDTX]

You don't believe there have been (and still are) heretical anti-Christian doctrines,
which people need to be warned about?

Of course I do. In the truest sense of the word, Jehovah Witness and Mormons are heretics because they pull people away from true salvation.
But when it comes to the theological questions of how God accomplished salvation, or what will happen in the return of Christ, all such doctrines are the opinions of men and subject to error.

Paul addressed true heresy in Corinthians when he addressed the schisms being created by those who believed following the teaching of Apollos or others became a matter of heated dispute. Paul had to remind them that Christ was not divided, and all who put their trust in the salvation of Christ through the new birth were members of the same body.

 

[ViaCrucis]

I was waiting for someone to point out the "heresy" of my opinion. Well, Crypto. Guess what? I am a still a born again, Spirit filled Christian who knows Jesus and I am absolutely positive about my own salvation and my going to heaven with everlasting life.

Such doctrinal labels are meaningless. It had no impact on my salvation nor my work in sharing the Gospel in serving the Great Commission. It is a way of forcing one group of people's opinions on others by making such a claim is wrong, when in truth no one but God and Jesus really know.

And frankly, the word heresy from the Greek hairesis has a primary meaning of disunion or division, not error, and I think the labeling of people as heretics is much more dividing of the body of Christ than the doctrine - which has no interference in the ability to be saved - called an heresy.

In truth it is a way of strutting academic pride in the knowledge of the person calling something heresy.

Your salvation isn't being called into question, so that's a moot point.

If your objection to my post boils down to "theology doesn't matter", then there's not going to be much of a conversation. Either theology matters or it doesn't; either what we say about God matters or it doesn't.

If it doesn't matter, then none of it matters.
If it does matter, then all of it matters.

-CryptoLutheran

 

[ViaCrucis]

Thanks, I like your explanation.

Now, can you offer a suggestion as to why
both the Word and the Holy Spirit teamed up
to produce the God-Man (Jesus), the Son of God?

And, do you agree with my explanation of why He is called "the Son of God",
which is ... His "father" was no other than God the Holy Spirit,
or even the Word (take your choice)?

Please, don't let all of this freak you out
just because it is non-traditional thinking.

No, I don't agree with what you've said here.

The Holy Spirit isn't Jesus's "father". Jesus is the Son of God because He's the only-begotten Son of the Father, from all eternity. When He became human He became the Son of Mary, He is the Son of God from all eternity. There was never a time when He wasn't the Son, because He is the Father's only-begotten Son from all eternity.

-CryptoLutheran

 

[AlexDTX]

If your objection to my post boils down to "theology doesn't matter", then there's not going to be much of a conversation. Either theology matters or it doesn't; either what we say about God matters or it doesn't.

If it doesn't matter, then none of it matters.
If it does matter, then all of it matters.

What matters is the practical consequences of the theology and how it is implemented. It mattered to Michael Servetus who did not believe in the trinity after John Calvin orchestrated his being burned alive. It mattered to my ancestor Jan Huss who was burned alive by the Catholic church.

And it matters in the types of division that claims that "our" understanding of esoteric elements of salvation such as how the humanity divinity of Christ existed. You did not say the word "heresy" but you implied it when you said "In the best case scenario this is Nestorianism, in the worst case it is Apollinarianism."

Nestor believed in the independence of the man from the divine. So an ecumenical council condemns his view as heresy. Apolloinaris believe the body was human but the mind divine so the council of Constantinople declared his view heresy.

Apart from the essentials of what needs to be known to receive the new birth and how to walk in the Spirit, all else is academic. The very act of saying this is "heretical" and this is not, is heresy in the sense that it creates further division in the body of Christ.

This is the very thing Paul addressed the Corinthians.

1Co 1:10 Now I beseech you, brethren, by the name of our Lord Jesus Christ, that ye all speak the same thing, and that there be no divisions among you; but that ye be perfectly joined together in the same mind and in the same judgment.
...
1Co 1:12 Now this I say, that every one of you saith, I am of Paul; and I of Apollos; and I of Cephas; and I of Christ.
1Co 1:13 Is Christ divided? was Paul crucified for you? or were ye baptized in the name of Paul?​

Does Paul mean doctrinal unity in such esoteric matters? I think not. He tells us what our unity is based on:

1Co_1:23 But we preach Christ crucified, unto the Jews a stumblingblock, and unto the Greeks foolishness;​

The simplicity of the Gospel.

Sound doctrine is not the ivory high tower academic minutiae in what God only knows of how God does what he does. Sound doctrine is what brings the fruit of the Spirit and the peaceable fruits of righteousness to believers.

Yes, theology matters if it strengthens our walk in Christ and motivates us to obedience to the Lord.

 

[BCsenior]

The Holy Spirit isn't Jesus's "father".
Jesus is the Son of God because He's the only-begotten Son of the Father, from all eternity. When He became human He became the Son of Mary, He is the Son of God from all eternity. There was never a time when He wasn't the Son, because He is the Father's only-begotten Son from all eternity.

I always say ... the Holy Spirit "PLAYED THE ROLE OF JESUS' FATHER".
In kind of a half-joking way!
He and Mary got together and produced ...
God's one-and-only, unique, only-begotten, "Son" of God.

Okay friend, WHO was with the Father from the very beginning?
Was it the Word ... or was it the Son?
This "Son" deal began at the birth of Jesus when God actually was His Father.
Anything wrong with saying Jesus' father was the Father?
Please explain this to all of the theologians all down through the centuries.

Yes, please try and forget all of the nonsense that you've
been deceived/brainwashed with all of these many years!
Yes, that is exactly what everyone's problem is re: biblical doctrine!
People have relied on brainwashing instead of Scripture and spiritual revelation.
Sorry, to blow your mind so much, but ...
the NT says that all will be made clear in the last days, so be open to it.

 

[BCsenior]

Sound doctrine is not the ivory high tower academic minutiae ...

For centuries, the ONLY doctrine was spewed out by the church leaders who were educated
... whilst the masses were uneducated. This was what all of the icons and paintings
were all about ... teaching the masses who could not read.

 

[ViaCrucis]

Okay friend, WHO was with the Father from the very beginning?
Was it the Word ... or was it the Son?

Yes.

This "Son" deal began at the birth of Jesus when God actually was His Father.

False, He is the Son from all eternity because His "birth" from the Father is eternal. The Father has always been the Father, and the Son has always been the Son.

The Father has never not had a Son, but has always been Father of the Son.
The Son has always existed, as the begotten of the Father, without beginning, in eternity.

He is the Son, only-begotten, eternally begotten of the Father. He is God of God, Light of Light, very God of very God. There was never a time when the Son was not.

He is Eternal Son of the Eternal Father.

The one Christ, Lord, only-begotten Son and Word.

-CryptoLutheran

 

[ViaCrucis]

What matters is the practical consequences of the theology and how it is implemented.

Then let's talk about the practical consequences of theology.

"Whatever is not assumed is not healed." - St. Gregory Nazianzus

"For it was for this end that the Word of God was made man, and He who was the Son of God became the Son of man, that man, having been taken into the Word, and receiving the adoption, might become the son of God. For by no other means could we have attained to incorruptibility and immortality, unless we had been united to incorruptibility and immortality. But how could we be joined to incorruptibility and immortality, unless, first, incorruptibility and immortality had become that which we also are, so that the corruptible might be swallowed up by incorruptibility, and the mortal by immortality, that we might receive the adoption of sons?" - St. Irenaeus

-CryptoLutheran

 

[BCsenior]

He is the Son from all eternity because His "birth" from the Father is eternal. The Father has always been the Father, and the Son has always been the Son.

Methinks, thou dost not understand.
I only believe in the Scriptures.
I do not believe in false doctrines from the churches.
Where in Scripture do we find your false doctrines?

 

[BCsenior]

(quoting) St. Gregory Nazianzus ...and... St. Irenaeus

Are you out of your mind ... believing in "the doctrines of men"?

 

[ViaCrucis]

Methinks, thou dost not understand.
I only believe in the Scriptures.
I do not believe in false doctrines from the churches.
Where in Scripture do we find your false doctrines?

John 1:1-2, 14, 18
John 3:16
John 5:19-29
John 14:10-11
John 16:28
Colossians 1:15-20
Hebrews 1:1-13
Hebrews 5:5

-CryptoLutheran

 

[ViaCrucis]

Are you out of your mind ... believing in "the doctrines of men"?

I believe in one God, the Father Almighty, Maker of heaven and earth. And in Jesus Christ, His only-begotten Son our Lord. Who was conceived by the Holy Spirit, and born of the Virgin Mary. He suffered under Pontius Pilate, was crucified, buried, dead. He descended into the depths, and on the third day He rose again. He ascended into the heavens where He sits at the right hand of the Father, from whence He will come again to judge the living and the dead. I believe in the Holy Spirit, the holy catholic Church, the forgiveness of sins, the resurrection of the body, and the life everlasting.

That's what I believe.

"I did not make it. No, it is making me. It is the very truth of God, not the invention of any man."

-CryptoLutheran

 

[AlexDTX]

Then let's talk about the practical consequences of theology.

"Whatever is not assumed is not healed." - St. Gregory Nazianzus

"For it was for this end that the Word of God was made man, and He who was the Son of God became the Son of man, that man, having been taken into the Word, and receiving the adoption, might become the son of God. For by no other means could we have attained to incorruptibility and immortality, unless we had been united to incorruptibility and immortality. But how could we be joined to incorruptibility and immortality, unless, first, incorruptibility and immortality had become that which we also are, so that the corruptible might be swallowed up by incorruptibility, and the mortal by immortality, that we might receive the adoption of sons?" - St. Irenaeus

-CryptoLutheran

I don't see the relevance of the Gregory quopte. And apart from meaning you might have implied beyond the plain statement of Irenaeus, I have no disagreement.

Neither statement makes much difference regarding practical application without your further explanation. Please explain further.

 

[BCsenior]

Please, Via da Cross, explain further.

Yes, ask him to explain what his church fathers (many hundreds of years ago)
came up with re: Jesus was the result of the efforts of 3 entities, who art:
the Word, the Holy Spirit, and last (and least) of all ... poor little humble Mary
(who many millions pray to ... still today).

 

[ViaCrucis]

I don't see the relevance of the Gregory quopte. And apart from meaning you might have implied beyond the plain statement of Irenaeus, I have no disagreement.

Gregory's statement is made against the teachings of Apollonaris who taught that rather than having a rational, human soul and mind, this was instead occupied by the Divine Logos; and thus Jesus was a man inhabited by the Divine Logos in a way similar to how men have their soul and reasoning faculties.

Gregory's argument is that Jesus must be fully human, not just partly human, otherwise we have no salvation.

"Whatever is not assumed is not healed" means what it says.

Here is a fuller quotation, it is from the Epistle to Cleodonis, against Apollonaris,

"If anyone has put his trust in Him as a Man without a human mind, he is really bereft of mind, and quite unworthy of salvation. For that which He has not assumed He has not healed; but that which is united to His Godhead is also saved. If only half Adam fell, then that which Christ assumes and saves may be half also; but if the whole of his nature fell, it must be united to the whole nature of Him that was begotten, and so be saved as a whole. Let them not, then, begrudge us our complete salvation, or clothe the Saviour only with bones and nerves and the portraiture of humanity."

If Christ is not truly God and truly man, united in one undivided Person, then we do not have salvation. Our salvation comes from the One who, being eternally God, has united Himself to our humanity in its entirety (but without sin), in order that our entire humanity might be saved. For that which is united to His Deity is saved; anything that is not, is not saved. A Christology which denies the full union of Deity and humanity in the one undivided Person is a Christology that denies our very salvation.

That is also what Irenaeus says in the quoted portion. It is the union of the Divine with the human that redeems the human. God, become man, suffering, dying, rising for our benefit; for that which we are united to what He is, in order to redeem what we are, and grant to us what He is and has.

Again, St. Irenaeus in his work against the Gnostics,

"but following the only true and steadfast Teacher, the Word of God, our Lord Jesus Christ, who did, through His transcendent love, become what we are, that He might bring us to be even what He is Himself."

Or as the Apostle St. Paul himself writes to the Romans,

"For you did not receive the spirit of slavery to fall back into fear, but you have received the Spirit of adoption as sons, by whom we cry, 'Abba! Father!' The Spirit himself bears witness with our spirit that we are children of God, and if children, then heirs—heirs of God and fellow heirs with Christ, provided we suffer with him in order that we may also be glorified with him."

And the same Apostle says elsewhere to the Galatians,

"I mean that the heir, as long as he is a child, is no different from a slave, though he is the owner of everything, but he is under guardians and managers until the date set by his father. In the same way we also, when we were children, were enslaved to the elementary principles of the world. But when the fullness of time had come, God sent forth his Son, born of woman, born under the law, to redeem those who were under the law, so that we might receive adoption as sons. And because you are sons, God has sent the Spirit of his Son into our hearts, crying, 'Abba! Father!' So you are no longer a slave, but a son, and if a son, then an heir through God."

-CryptoLutheran

 

[ViaCrucis]

Yes, ask him to explain what his church fathers (many hundreds of years ago)

"Therefore, since we are surrounded by so great a cloud of witnesses, let us also lay aside every weight, and sin which clings so closely, and let us run with endurance the race that is set before us, looking to Jesus, the founder and perfecter of our faith, who for the joy that was set before him endured the cross, despising the shame, and is seated at the right hand of the throne of God." - Hebrews 12:1-2

-CryptoLutheran

 

[BCsenior]

BC: ask him (ViaCruisin) to explain what his church fathers (many hundreds of years ago)
came up with re: Jesus was the result of the efforts of 3 entities, who art:
the Word, the Holy Spirit, and last (and least) of all ... poor little humble Mary
(who many millions pray to ... still today).

And his answer is in post 137 ... "Therefore, since we are surrounded by so great a cloud of witnesses,
let us also lay aside every weight, and sin which clings so closely, and let us run with endurance the race that is set before us, looking to Jesus, the founder and perfecter of our faith, who for the joy that was set before him endured the cross, despising the shame, and is seated at the right hand of the throne of God." - Hebrews 12:1-2

 

[BCsenior]

RE: the OP of this thread ...
The question still remains ...
WHY were the dual efforts of the Word and the Holy Spirit
necessary to produce the God-Man (Jesus Christ, the Son of God)?

 

[hedrick]

But every theologian who understands the hypostaic union even basically understands that God was not tempted in the wilderness and was not tempted in every way just as we are and that God did not die at Calvary.

This doesn't sound orthodox to me. Of course you may willing to be non-orthodox. But the whole point of rejecting Nestorius was to prohibit dividing Christ that way. If Mary was the mother of God, then God was tempted and died.