The Trinity made easy
- Thread starter civic
- Start date
Peterlag
Well-known member
I would respond to this if I knew what you were talking about. I was talking about that the Bible does not teach Jesus had two natures or even two wills.
charismaticlady
Active member
I can agree with you on that my friend. Did you know that when we are born again we obtained the same nature Jesus was born with? It is why we cannot sin, nor did Jesus. " 9 Whoever has been born of God does not sin, for His seed remains in him; and he cannot sin, because he has been born of God." We receive the seed of God that Jesus was conceived with!
Last edited:
civic
Well-known member
Hypostatic Union
1. Jesus is a person. (1 Tim 2:5)
2. Jesus, the Person, has two natures- Divine and human (John 1:1, 14, 1 Timothy 3:16): Divine and human. This is the Hypostatic Union.( Col 2:9, Heb 1:3,2:16)
3. The Communicatio Idiomatum (Communication of the Properties) states that the attributes of His Divine nature and human nature are both ascribed to the one Person of Jesus, the Divine Son who is the 2nd Person of the Trinity. So Jesus can exhibit attributes of Divinity (Omnipresence, Omniscience, Omnipotence, . John 2:23, 3:13, 8:58, He was prayed to in Acts 7:59, John 14:13, He was is worshiped Matt 2:2:11, Rev 5:13-14) and at the same time exhibit attributes of His humanity( He was tempted, ate, prayed,wept, grew in wisdom and stature,was anointed,was baptized, the Father was greater, didn’t know the day or the hour of His Return, He cried My God my God why has Thou forsaken Me, He died etc.). The communicatio idiomatum does not mean that any part of the Divine nature was communicated to the human nature. The Creed of Chalcedon declares that : “in two natures, without confusion, without change, without division, without separation, the distinction of natures being by no means taken away by the union, but rather the property of each nature being preserved, and concurring in one persona and one subsistence, not parted or divided into two person, but one and the same Son, and only begotten, God the Word, the Lord Jesus Christ.
4. The Man(anthropos) Jesus is what we perceive (if we were there 2000 years ago in Israel) and through the Man we encounter the Divine nature (Jesus knowing all things, is on earth while in heaven, answers prayer, forgiving sins, etc.).
5. The Person of Jesus will always be both Divine and human. (John 1:1,14,20:28, 1 John 5:20, 1 Timothy 2:5) Those who deny this fact are the spirit of antichrist. (1 John 4:1-4,2 John 7)
6. The Divine Nature is within the Trinity.(Father, Son and Holy Spirit)
7. Since the Person of Jesus claims the attributes of Divinity(John 3:13,8:58,Matthew 9:2,12:8), then the Person of Jesus is a member of the Trinity.( John 14-16, Math 28:19)
Anything said of either of Christ's two natures applies to the one Person of Christ, so that is how it is said that Christ died on the cross. The term "hypostatic union" refers to the two natures united in the one Person, so anything said of those two natures in the one Person applies to the whole Person. So we see that the Person of Christ is both God and man. The phrase hypostatic union was adopted by the general council at Chalcedon 451 AD. That council declared that the union of two natures is real (against Arius), not a mere indwelling of God in a man (against Nestorius), with a rational soul (against Apollinaris), and that in Christ’s Divine nature remains unchanged (against Eutyches).
We need to look to the Monothelite Controversy which had to deal with whether there was one or two wills/minds in the person of Christ. The outcome was that there were two; one human and one divine with the human subjected to the divine. The eternal Son of God did not assume a part of a human nature without a mind, without a will, without human activity, but He assumed all the things that were planted in our nature by God.
Now then, to act (or in this case, speak) is the work of a person, but the form or nature is the cause of this action; for each person acts in accord with the form or nature which it has. A difference in causes (natures) produces a difference in effects (actions). Therefore, where there are different natures, there are also different activities. So in the one Person of Christ there are two natural actions, the divine and the human, each of which has its own essential attributes, functions, and actions. Jesus was thirty years old according to His human nature (Luke 3:23); according to His divine nature He could say: "Before Abraham was born, I am" (John 8:58). The question is did both natures know this and communicate it to the Person. The answer is yes because the divine nature with its corresponding divine will willed the human nature to respond in such a fashion in keeping with Christ's office and ministry. In the text regarding Mark 13:32, we have a slightly different situation here. Christ is acting (speaking) from His human nature, but, this time, the divine will does not allow the human will access to this knowledge. For this information is not to be published on earth. Therefore, as man, Christ cannot answer the question. In the works pertaining to the office of Christ as Prophet, Priest, and King both natures act in conjunction with each other, each nature doing what is peculiar to the same. The book of Hebrews goes into great detail with these offices.
hope this helps !!!
civic
Well-known member
Colossians 2:9
King James Bible
For in him dwelleth all the fulness of the Godhead bodily
Now read the Greek below on the present ongoing meaning of DWELLS . The bodily dwelling of Deity is permanent not temporary. The Incarnation was PERMANENT.
κατοικεῖ (katoikei)
Verb - Present Indicative Active - 3rd Person Singular
Strong's Greek 2730: To dwell in, settle in, be established in (permanently), inhabit. From kata and oikeo; to house permanently, i.e. Reside.
8.2 σωματικός, ή, όν; σωματικῶςa: (derivatives of σῶμαa ‘body,’ 8.1) pertaining to a physical body—‘bodily, physical, bodily form.’[1] Louw Nida
Expositor's Greek Testament
Colossians 2:9. in Him and in Him alone.—κατοικεῖ: “permanently dwells”. The reference is to the Exalted State, not only on account of the present, but of the context and Paul’s Christology generally.—πᾶν τὸ πλήρωμα τῆς θεότητος: “all the fulness of the Godhead”. πᾶν is emphatic, the whole fulness dwells in Christ.
Body
sōmatikṓs (an adverb, derived from 4984 /sōmatikós which is an adjective derived from 4983 /sṓma, "body") – bodily(used only in Col 2:9)Loew & Nida Greek Lexicon
Never once in the NT is soma ever used of something nonphysical or immaterial .
Paul is talking in Col chapters 2-3 about the glorified resurrected Christ now seated at the right hand of God not the earthly Christ pre resurrection. This is a slam dunk that He is in a human glorified resurrection body and that He continues to have all the fullness of Deity dwelling bodily in the present.
Bodily (σωματικῶς) In bodily fashion or bodily-wise. The verse contains two distinct assertions: 1. That the fullness of the Godhead eternally dwells in Christ. The present tense κατοικεῖ dwelleth, is used like ἐστιν is (the image), Colossians 1:15, to denote an eternal and essential characteristic of Christ's being. The indwelling of the divine fullness in Him is characteristic of Him as Christ, from all ages and to all ages. Hence the fullness of the Godhead dwelt in Him before His incarnation, when He was "in the form of God" (Philippians 2:6). The Word in the beginning, was with God and was God (John 1:1). It dwelt in Him during His incarnation. It was the Word that became flesh and dwelt among us, full of grace and truth, and His glory which was beheld was the glory as of the Only begotten of the Father (John 1:14; compare 1 John 1:1-3). The fullness of the Godhead dwells in His glorified humanity in heaven.
2. The fullness of the Godhead dwells in Him in a bodily way, clothed the body. This means that it dwells in Him as one having a human body. This could not be true of His preincarnate state, when He was "in the form of God," for the human body was taken on by Him in the fullness of time, when "He became in the likeness of men" (Philippians 2:7), when the Word became flesh. The fullness of the Godhead dwelt in His person from His birth to His ascension. He carried His human body with Him into heaven, and in His glorified body now and ever dwells the fullness of the Godhead. Vincent Greek Word Studies
(2:9) Commenting on the contents of this verse, Lightfoot says; “The apostle justifies the foregoing charge that the doctrine was not according to Christ: ‘In Christ dwells the whole plērōma (πληρωμα) (fulness, plenitude), the entire fulness of the Godhead, whereas they represent it to you as dispersed among several spiritual agencies. Christ is the fountain-head of all spiritual life, whereas they teach you to seek it in communion with inferior creatures.’ ”
“Dwelleth” is katoikei (κατοικει). Oikeō (Ὀικεω) means “to be at home.” Kata (Κατα), prefixed, means “down,” thus showing permanence. The compound verb was used of the permanent residents of a town as compared with the transient community. The verb is in the present tense, showing durative action. The translation reads: “Because in Him there is continuously and permanently at home all the fulness of the Godhead in bodily fashion.”
Dwelleth imports more than a transient stay for a few minutes, or a little while, even abiding in him constantly and for ever, as dwelling most usually notes, 2 Corinthians 6:16. That which doth thus perpetually abide in his person, as denominated after the human nature, is all the fulness of the Godhead, viz. that rich and incomprehensible abundance of perfections, whereof the supreme and adorable nature is full; so that indeed there is not at all any perfection or excellency in the Divine nature but is found abiding in him. And after no common or ordinary way, but by a hypostatical or personal union of the Godhead with the manhood in Christ; which is not by way of mixture, confusion, conversion, or any other mutation;
civic
Well-known member
continued :
bodily, to exclude that inhabitation which is only by extrinsical denomination. It being an adverb, doth denote the manner as well as the subject; wherefore when he speaks of the temple of his body, John 2:21, that doth not fully reach the apostle’s meaning here: but it must be expounded personally, since in the Greek that which signifies with us a body, and so our English word body, is put for a person, Romans 12:1 2 Corinthians 5:10 Revelation 18:13: somebody or nobody, i.e. some person or no person. There is a presence of the Godhead general, by essence and power; particular, in the prophets and apostles working miracles: gracious, in all sanctified ones; glorious, in heaven, in light which no man can approach unto, 1 Timothy 6:16; relative, in the church visible and ordinances, typically under the law, and symbolically in the sacraments: but all these dwellings, or being present in the creature, fall short of that in the text, viz. bodily, connoting the personal habitation of the Deity in, and union of it with, the humanity of Christ, so close, and strait, and intimate, that the Godhead inhabiting and the manhood inhabited make but one and the same person, even as the reasonable soul and body in man make but one man. The way of the presence of the Deity with the humanity of Christ is above all those manners of the presence of God with angels and men. The Godhead dwells in him personally, in them in regard of assistance and energy: Godhead notes the truth of it; Christ was not only partaker of the Divine nature, 2 Peter 1:4, but the very Godhead dwells in him: it is not only the Divinity (as the Socinians, following the Vulgar Latin in this, would have it) but the Deity, the very nature and essence of God. Now it is observable, though in God himself Divinity and Deity be indeed the same, Romans 1:20, and may differ only from the manner of our conception and contemplation; yet here, when the enemies to Christ’s Deity might by their cavilling make more use of the word Divinity, (as when the soul of man is said to be a divine thing), to insinuate as if it here noted only the Divine will exclusive to the other attributes, (which exclusion the term all doth significantly prevent), the apostle puts in Deity or Godhead. Then lest Christ might (as by the Arians) be deemed a secondary God, or (as some since) a made god, inferior to the Father, he saith the fulness of the Godhead, which speaks him perfect God, coequal with the Father: further, connoting a numerical sameness of essence between the Godhead of the Father and the Son, all the fulness of the Godhead dwelleth in him. There is not one fulness of the Father and another of the Son, but one and the same singular Godhead in both, John 10:30. The fulness of the manhood in Adam and Eve were not numerically the same, but the Godhead of the Father and the Son is: yet is not the manhood of Christ co-extended and commensurate with the Godhead (as some Lutherans conceit); but where the manhood is, or Christ as man is, or hath his existence, there the fulness of the Godhead dwells bodily: so that this fulness is extended as the manhood only in which it is, and not as far as the Deity in which this derivative fulness is not as in its seat, though it be all originally from it, but inherently or subjectively in Christ. Matthew Poole
Conclusion: no one in the history of mankind has ever had all the fulness of Deity in them except Christ alone who is God manifest in the flesh. just as the Father and the Holy Spirit have all the fulness of Deity, so to does the Incarnate Son- Forever God in the flesh !
What a Marvelous Triune God we serve !
hope this helps !!
bodily, to exclude that inhabitation which is only by extrinsical denomination. It being an adverb, doth denote the manner as well as the subject; wherefore when he speaks of the temple of his body, John 2:21, that doth not fully reach the apostle’s meaning here: but it must be expounded personally, since in the Greek that which signifies with us a body, and so our English word body, is put for a person, Romans 12:1 2 Corinthians 5:10 Revelation 18:13: somebody or nobody, i.e. some person or no person. There is a presence of the Godhead general, by essence and power; particular, in the prophets and apostles working miracles: gracious, in all sanctified ones; glorious, in heaven, in light which no man can approach unto, 1 Timothy 6:16; relative, in the church visible and ordinances, typically under the law, and symbolically in the sacraments: but all these dwellings, or being present in the creature, fall short of that in the text, viz. bodily, connoting the personal habitation of the Deity in, and union of it with, the humanity of Christ, so close, and strait, and intimate, that the Godhead inhabiting and the manhood inhabited make but one and the same person, even as the reasonable soul and body in man make but one man. The way of the presence of the Deity with the humanity of Christ is above all those manners of the presence of God with angels and men. The Godhead dwells in him personally, in them in regard of assistance and energy: Godhead notes the truth of it; Christ was not only partaker of the Divine nature, 2 Peter 1:4, but the very Godhead dwells in him: it is not only the Divinity (as the Socinians, following the Vulgar Latin in this, would have it) but the Deity, the very nature and essence of God. Now it is observable, though in God himself Divinity and Deity be indeed the same, Romans 1:20, and may differ only from the manner of our conception and contemplation; yet here, when the enemies to Christ’s Deity might by their cavilling make more use of the word Divinity, (as when the soul of man is said to be a divine thing), to insinuate as if it here noted only the Divine will exclusive to the other attributes, (which exclusion the term all doth significantly prevent), the apostle puts in Deity or Godhead. Then lest Christ might (as by the Arians) be deemed a secondary God, or (as some since) a made god, inferior to the Father, he saith the fulness of the Godhead, which speaks him perfect God, coequal with the Father: further, connoting a numerical sameness of essence between the Godhead of the Father and the Son, all the fulness of the Godhead dwelleth in him. There is not one fulness of the Father and another of the Son, but one and the same singular Godhead in both, John 10:30. The fulness of the manhood in Adam and Eve were not numerically the same, but the Godhead of the Father and the Son is: yet is not the manhood of Christ co-extended and commensurate with the Godhead (as some Lutherans conceit); but where the manhood is, or Christ as man is, or hath his existence, there the fulness of the Godhead dwells bodily: so that this fulness is extended as the manhood only in which it is, and not as far as the Deity in which this derivative fulness is not as in its seat, though it be all originally from it, but inherently or subjectively in Christ. Matthew Poole
Conclusion: no one in the history of mankind has ever had all the fulness of Deity in them except Christ alone who is God manifest in the flesh. just as the Father and the Holy Spirit have all the fulness of Deity, so to does the Incarnate Son- Forever God in the flesh !
What a Marvelous Triune God we serve !
hope this helps !!
e v e
Well-known member
Yes and that topic was the topic of my response.
Peterlag
Well-known member
My take on Colossians 2:9... The Greek is sōmatikōs (#4985 σωματικῶς), and it is an adverb. In this context, it modifies the verb “dwells” and is thus saying that what God is, His godly character and way of being, is embodied, or expressed in a mortal body in Christ. This verse is very good proof that Jesus Christ was not God. It would make no sense to say that “what God is” dwells in God. It's only because Christ is not God that it makes sense to say that what God is dwells in Christ. Also, the verse uses the word “God” not “the Father.” If Trinitarians were correct that the Father and Christ were two separate “Persons” but both the Father and Christ were “God” then this verse should state that in Christ dwells all the fullness of “the Father.” The verse says “God” is dwelling bodily in Christ, that is, being embodied in him.
What God was, all his character and glory, dwelt in Christ in a bodily form. Some Trinitarians recognize that logically what God is could not dwell in God, and so they assert that this verse is referring to the “man” part of Christ (the doctrine of the Trinity states that Jesus is both fully God and fully human. The fact that this is logically impossible by definition is ignored and taken as one of the mysteries of the Faith). The idea that what God is could dwell in the man side of Christ is a contrived argument, and based upon faulty Trinitarian logic. Jesus Christ was not a divided person, with what God was dwelling in one part of him, but not in the other part because that other part was God. Deity [what God is]... could not dwell in him if he had not become man. Jesus was the created, fully human, Son of God, and what God was, all the character of God, dwelled in him, and could do so because he was a man, not God.
civic
Well-known member
Logic has nothing to do with truth that’s a strawman. God by definition is Miraculous. Miracles cannot be explained by science and contradict every aspect science tries to disproves miracles. It’s inexplicable through logic and science. That’s why human wisdom fails in trying to understand the things of the Spirit when it comes to God as multi- personal and Christs 2 natures. The wisdom of God is foolishness to the human mind. It cannot comprehend it.
It’s why the Pharisees rejected Christs claims to be God just like the 1st century gnostics did since it defies human reasoning and understanding.
hope this helps. !!!
Peterlag
Well-known member
I did not get past this statement "Jesus, the Person, has two natures- Divine and human (John 1:1, 14, 1" because if this is the foundation on which you are building. Then I gotta stop right here because I don't see any Scripture that says Jesus had two natures. Certainly not in John 1:1.
Jesus Christ is not a lexical definition of logos. The verse does not say "In the beginning was Jesus." The "Word" is not synonymous with Jesus, or even the "Messiah." The word logos in John 1:1 refers to God's creative self-expression... His reason, purpose and plans, especially as they are brought into action. It refers to God's self-expression or communication of Himself. This has come to pass through His creation and especially the heavens. It has come through the spoken word of the prophets and through Scripture. Most notably it has come into being through His Son. The logos is the expression of God and is His communication of Himself just as a "word" is an outward expression of a person's thoughts. This outward expression of God has now occurred through His Son and thus it's perfectly understandable why Jesus is called the "Word." Jesus is an outward expression of God's reason, wisdom, purpose and plan. For the same reason we call revelation "a word from God" and the Bible "the Word of God."
If we understand that the logos is God's expression... His plan, purpose, reason and wisdom. Then it is clear they were with Him "in the beginning." Scripture says God's wisdom was "from the beginning" and it was common in Hebrew writing to personify a concept such as wisdom. The fact that the logos "became" flesh shows it did not exist that way before. There is no pre-existence for Jesus in this verse other than his figurative "existence" as the plan, purpose or wisdom of God for the salvation of man. The same is true with the "word" in writing. It had no literal pre-existence as a "spirit-book" somehow in eternity past, but came into being as God gave the revelation to people and they wrote it down.
civic
Well-known member
He has a human nature from Mary as a man and a Divine nature from the Holy Spirit for starters with His conception in the womb.
Are you denying He was conceived by the Holy Spirit without a biological human father ?
Peterlag
Well-known member
We agree on that my beautiful friend.
Salty
New member
What about Romans 7:19? For I do not do the good I want, but the evil I do not want is what I keep on doing.
Paul is describing the experience of all Christians struggling to stop sinning and to do the good they are capable of doing in the power of the Holy Spirit now that they are no longer slaves to sin.
Also according to 1 John 1:9, when we confess our sins, God is both faithful and just in forgiving us and purifying us from all unrighteousness. This verse emphasizes the importance of acknowledging and admitting our sins to God, rather than denying or hiding them.
Sanctification on the other hand, is the process of being made righteous in practice, is ongoing, and Christians are progressively freed from the power of sin Romans 6:15-23 However, they still sin because their old nature, though dead in one sense, is being put to death and still has influence over them.
God’s desire for us is that we not sin, and one day our sanctification will be complete. 1 John 3:2 But, until that time, we still inhabit fallen bodies in a fallen world, and we struggle with the flesh and sometimes lose the battle. But we will not be lost; Jesus Himself intercedes for us as our High Priest.
Sinless perfection is not going to happen until the rapture of the church.
civic
Well-known member
Not until the Resurrection when we receive our new glorified bodies when the perishable shall put on imperishable, the mortal immortality.
1 Cor 15.
charismaticlady
Active member
Hi Salty, nice to meet you.
The context of verse 19 is that of us being in the flesh which means still under the law. But the power of the gospel of Christ shows that we are NOT in the flesh. Romans 8:9 But you are not in the flesh but in the Spirit, if indeed the Spirit of God dwells in you. Now if anyone does not have the Spirit of Christ, he is not His.
That context is also in chapter 7 in verses 5-7 so Paul expected you to read that first, so you wouldn't come to your conclusion. Paul is just showing that the law, itself, is still Holy, but is for sinners even today. See:
5 For when we were in the flesh (past tense). the sinful passions which were aroused by the law were at work in our members to bear fruit to death. 6 But now we have been delivered from the law, having died to what we were held by, so that we should serve in the newness of the Spirit and not in the oldness of the letter.
7 What shall we say then? Is the law sin? Certainly not! On the contrary, I would not have known sin except through the law. For I would not have known covetousness unless the law had said, “You shall not covet.”
charismaticlady
Active member
Where do you see that written? Sinlessness from lawlessness (Ten Commandments) happens when we are born again of the seed of the Father and thus cannot sin. That is day one of being saved. John 15:3 "you are clean" and 1 John 1:9 cleansed from all unrighteousness.
Perfection on the other hand is closer to the end of our life when all of the fruit of the Spirit are finally all mature and according to 2 Peter 1:10-11 we never stumble. (For full context read from verse 5 or even 2)
Sinless and perfection should not be written together. There is sinlessness and there is perfection, just as their is righteousness and holiness that mean the same things.
cc: @civic, @Peterlag
Last edited:
civic
Well-known member
Yes fruit takes time to develop and mature
Bobby Walker
Member
Even Jesus could have sinned when he walked this earth. Otherwise why would he be tempted in the wilderness and yet did not sin. He had the ability and could have chosen to sin but did not. We are certainly not superior to Christ when it comes to temptation.
Why do you think Jesus washed the feet of the disciples? As we Christians walk through the world, some of the world’s spiritual filth will cling to us, and that needs to be washed away—forgiven by Christ. 1 John 1:9
If you're married and you check out someone of the opposite sex you just committed Adultery. If you call somebody a fool that cuts you off on the freeway you're a murderer.
So good luck with not sinning in your Christian walk.
Salty
New member
Hi there Chrismaticlady, Nice to meet you also.
As for Romans 8:9 i've actually heard the argument before many times. It usually works something like this:
In the previous verse, Paul declared that nothing good dwells in his flesh. By flesh, he referred to his physical self, his body. He repeats now the pattern he has observed over and over in his life: He doesn't do the good he wants to do, but he keeps doing the evil he does not want to do. Paul is describing an endless battle between good intentions and actual actions.
Is he describing himself as he was before he came to know Christ? Back then, he was attempting to follow the law of Moses. A few Bible scholars believe Paul is painting the picture of what it is like to live under the law without the ability to keep the law. Other Bible scholars think Paul is describing the experience of all Christians struggling to stop sinning and to do the good they are capable of doing in the power of the Holy Spirit now that they are no longer slaves to sin. Both harmonize with the experience of believers and the information presented in the rest of the New Testament.
Based on analysis of the Greek language alone, it seems more likely that Paul is speaking of his current experience.
