Featured Did Christ suffer from Multiple Personality Disorder

You asked if Christ had a soul.

I posted that He did.

You go on to attempt clarifications that are not found in either the Scripture nor the creed.

 

First let me go back and readdress an area that you and I seem to be posting past each other. Toward the end of this post, I also attend to the Philippians passage.


It goes the the claim that some promotion of heresy is being put forth.


Perhaps you could find such error in the following supporting verses from which the LBC takes the view(s)????

“The Word became flesh.”

“Took on the form of man.”

“She was found with child of the Holy Ghost.”

“… for that which is conceived in her is of the Holy Ghost.”

“…since the children share in flesh and blood, He Himself likewise also partook of the same, that through death He might render powerless him who had the power of death, that is, the devil,…”

"They shall call His name IMMANUEL,” which translated means, “GOD WITH US.”

“The Holy Spirit will come upon you, and the power of the Most High will overshadow you; and for that reason the holy Child shall be called the Son of God.”

“…from whom is the Christ according to the flesh, who is over all…”

“For it was the Father’s good pleasure for all the fullness to dwell in Him”

“For it was fitting for us to have such a high priest, holy, innocent, undefiled, separated from sinners and exalted above the heavens;…”

“So also Christ did not glorify Himself so as to become a high priest, but He who said to Him, “YOU ARE MY SON, TODAY I HAVE BEGOTTEN YOU”

“For just as the Father has life in Himself, even so He gave to the Son also to have life in Himself; and He gave Him authority to execute judgment, because He is the Son of Man.”

These verses are offered from the supporting proofs in which the LBC draws it's statement.

Which verse or grouping shown above is Christ portrayed as a dual nature?

There is none.

Philippians 2
6 Who, being in the form of God, thought it not robbery to be equal with God:
7 But made himself of no reputation, and took upon him the form of a servant, and was made in the likeness of men:
8 And being found in fashion as a man, he humbled himself, and became obedient unto death, even the death of the cross.

The reader should note that the Scriptures are careful to NOT say that He was "formed" as a man, but as a servant; that the "likeness" and "fashion" of Christ was to state that there was no different in appearance than that of any other average male of humankind. This is validated by Isaiah speaking, "there is no beauty that we should desire Him." The baby Jesus didn't glow with some heavenly aura in the crib.

Jesus Christ is the second Adam. There was no "sin nature" in Jesus, and this is the only attribute missing from the humanity of Christ. As flesh and blood, Christ also was not lacking in any of the "likeness and fashion" that go with that estate: Jesus learned, grew tired, hungry, thirsty, cried, sang, longed, got angry,...

All the creeds and statements of faith that have been posted clearly state that the "nature of man" and the "nature of God" became an inseparable union.

For instance, as the LBC (1689) states:
- Thus two whole, perfect and distinct natures were inseparably joined together in one person, without conversion, composition, or confusion;
- So that the Lord Jesus Christ is truly God and truly man, yet He is one Christ, the only Mediator between God and man

NOWHERE does it ever state that the two whole, perfect and distinct natures were whole, perfect and distinct AFTER being inseparably joined.

The Chalcedonian Creed:

... one and the same Christ, Son, Lord, only begotten, to be acknowledged in two natures, inconfusedly, unchangeably, indivisibly, inseparably;
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 Person and one Subsistence, not parted or divided into two persons, but one and the same Son, and only begotten God (μονογενῆ Θεὸν), the Word, the Lord Jesus Christ;

NOTE: the later part: "not parted or divided into two persons, but one and the same Son..."


Again, AFTER the union, there was no longer two separate natures but a singularity in which the distinct properties of the individual natures were retained.

For instance, the birth of Christ did not remove from Him nor change the human attributes displayed by such things as hunger, thirst, longing, desire, hope, and other physical and emotional expressions. The birth of Christ did not remove Him from responsibility of all authority and keeping of creation. And although the Scriptures record that Jesus increased in stature and wisdom as he grew from baby to adulthood, the sinlessness remained until the cross.

These are but a few of the manifestations of the union of human and divine in which the distinctive properties and attributes of each were unchanged, without confusion, inseparable from each other and cannot be divided into separate natures.

 

The other post became too long, so I will respond to these verses in this one.

IF you have read, that is never in dispute. What you seem to have missed is the union and inseparability of the two natures into a singular form. Christ did not have a human mind and the mind of God as separate in Him. Christ did not have the spirit of man and the Spirit of God as separate in Him.

This verse does not show a divisiveness, but the unification. "I and the Father are one."

The divisive two nature estate is that which believers contend while living on this earth. We have the old nature and are given that new nature upon our heavenly birth date. It is that new nature "in Christ" in which the new body is given upon death.

Christ did not have that condition of the fallen and then the new. He did not dwell in a fallen nature body, soul, mind, strength. He was the second Adam, pure and undefiled, sinless. Just as the first Adam had complete unfettered access and fellowship, yet human, with God the Father, so does Christ. Of course, the first Adam was not divine.

When Christ and the two angels appeared before Abraham, what "form" did Christ have?

When Christ walked in the furnace of Neb. what form did He have?

When the apostles witnessed Christ transfigured on the mountain, what form did He have?

How is it that David called the Lord, Lord before He was born?

The Scriptures state that the "Lamb was slain before the foundations of the world." Does this mean that Christ was actually crucified twice?

Who formed Adam? Was it God? "And God said, Let us make man in our image, after our likeness: ..."

Yet, God is "spirit" and was Adam "spirit?" The obvious answer is no, but that was one facet of Adam given as part of the "breath of life."

It seems you have answered your own question, and I am unsure just how we are in disagreement in this area.

Perhaps it is that you desire some separation and distinguishing characteristic nature between the human and the God when looking at Christ.

None of the confessions (LBC, Westminster) nor the creeds (Nicene, Chalcedonian) support that sort of thinking. Rather, they all stress that the total human and total God attributes are inseparably unified and indistinguishable.

 

You are the second to place the heresy label upon me in this thread.

You quoted Philippians in which I have repeatedly posted, too. It was in full agreement with the Creeds and SofF's posted in the thread.

Then you make an issue of the first chapter of John.

Again, there really is no disagreement with what you have stated, and with what I have stated.

Perhaps the problem is that folks are attributing my statements with those who teach that the two natures are somehow mixed to form an alloy like a chemist might chemically mix atomic elements are to make some new form. That is not Scriptural, neither is it what I have consistently held. The two natures (human and God) were not destroyed, amalgamated, mixed together as if blended... but each retained the full property values, yet joined in unison as a singularity.

Unfortunately, I did attempt to apply examples of tossed salad and cake. But, as I stated, the union has no parallel examples that can be fully applied. The use of the example was to point out that one can separate the elements of the salad and cannot of the cake. It is that way with the nature of Christ.

When Christ spoke, He spoke with the full authority of both human and God in union. He never spoke from only human nature or from God nature.

When He was tired, thirsty, hungry it was with the full authority of both human and God. Even Satan recognized this when he tempted Christ in saying that He could change the stones and dirt into food and drink.

I have stated that the two natures were as the SofF and creeds state, unified, inseparable, and indistinguishable. Christ did not have two minds, two spirits, two wills, two hearts, two desires, two strengths, two...

When Paul states, "let this mind be in you that was in Christ Jesus" the believer is not left wondering, "which one?"

 

Because, I have no argument with the rest of the post, I will attend to the question on the word "indistinguishable."

Making the natures distinguishable would allow one to find distinguishing manifestations of say the divine nature in contrast to the human nature of Christ. A scene in which the human nature ascended above the divine or vice versa.

That cannot happen if they are "inseparably joined."

Being joined means that one nature cannot be manifested without the other also being present; therefore, the moment a human manifestation occurred such as hunger, thirst,... the divine is obliged to also hunger, thirst... In effect, what impacts one nature also impacts the other nature. The natures are not separated but unified.

The union presents that the divine is not isolated or insulated from the human and the human from the divine.

They are in deed indistinguishable and perform no function separately.

The believer does not yet experience this unification. The two natures human/divine war within the believer and there shall never be any peace accord between the two.

But this was not the condition of Christ. He had no examination within Him to try the spirit to see if it be of God or not. He had no battle of wills, hearts, thoughts, desires, .... that took place within Him, no struggles over what was right, or what decision to make. All these are believer struggles because we can distinguish within ourselves the divine nature in opposition to the human nature. Christ was in all points tested, tempted just as the believer - yet, without sin.

Because there was no opposing force in the Lord Jesus, the union of the natures make them inseparably manifested, and in fact indistinguishable.

If you disagree, perhaps you can demonstrate by Scriptures were there was a scene in which the character nature of Christ was divided showing the human nature in opposition to the divine.

One more point.

When you posted about "God having a soul," I took that in the context that you were referring to Christ being God.

More to the point, because Christ IS God (Word in the flesh), and the Scriptures do state that Christ had a soul, then it follows that God has a soul.

God is immortal, God is immaterial, God has a sense of identity and established moral attributes. Each of these are indicators of the soul.

There are some who do not accept that God has a soul because they place the word soul in alignment with flesh. But that is an unfortunate alignment that is not Scriptural. The soul of man is eternal, immaterial, has established moral attributes and identity and will be clothed in a new body or spend eternity in the lake of fire. Flesh and blood do not inherit the kingdom of God, but the soul of the believer clothed in Christ, does.

 

This is a great question in which the Western culture has relied upon the Greeks for centuries.

Perhaps there is a misunderstanding of "nature."

Nature - The general psychological characteristics, feelings, ways of thinking, and behavioral traits of humankind, regarded as shared by all humans across cultural lines.

The thinking of the ancient Greeks (which is still carried on in modern times), the nature of a person was the standard used in viewing a person as good or not. The person was considered good or bad by examination of how closely aligned to the natural. We still use terms such as "nature of the beast," "natural tendencies," "part of the nature,” and other statements indicating the qualities as in acceptability or not.

Within this Greek thinking was developed the concept of the intrinsic and extrinsic motivational factors. Example: "You being evil know how to give good gifts" maybe an example of the extrinsic factor of making someone else happy without regard to any intrinsic motivation (though such motivation may be a part). "A merry heart does good like medicine" is an example of intrinsic factors in which happy is internally pleasing and valued only to that person (though others around may enjoy residual effects of the attitude).

Some Greeks (Plato - student of Socrates) considered the natural man was impacted by environmental factors and concerned itself with the cause of "why." The determination of right and wrong were then considered as not merely the act itself but the environmental forces. Example: "Men do not despise a thief, if he steal to satisfy his soul when he is hungry." The modern thinking of "there is nothing evil in itself" is part of this line of reasoning. Generally, this line of reasoning has a rejection of such Scriptural thinking that comes from verses like: "Therefore to him that knows to do good, and does it not, to him it is sin." The environmental forces override the rational making an excuse.

Of course there were other Greeks (Aristotle) who generally rejected any "god" influence and organized views around nature being a matter of conditioned response. Sort of like an early form of evolution - action/reaction. The nature of man then is modified to "fit the environment" or the environment is the cause of natural adaptations. This view was heavily enjoined by the psychological world of Pavlov and his dogs and Johnson’s new society thinking. Ring a bell - get a treat. Change the environment and right will prevail. The greater amount of Democrat government sponsored programs involving housing, welfare, health care ... are all built upon this philosophical view. There is no god but man, and therefore, moral right and societal goals can be a matter of condition/response upon the "treats" one receives.

The typical Greek philosophy of the human nature included a divided soul in which one part is human and understands the world from that of a rational thinking being, in contrast to, that which is attuned to the earthy basic needs such as water, food, shelter. Ultimately, the humankind may achieve a god like existence by becoming more rational and understanding the natural forces taking place within. The baser appetites are to be explored unfettered and serve as worship experiences for there is no evil in itself, but some god that has been ignored who then brings about some displeasing event(s).

The Greek view of the human nature also included a god/human form. That the “gods” were humanoid forms or god forms that bore human attributes. The reliance of temple worship experiences and loyalties to oracles – decrees and perhaps events that could be fulfilled or thwarted depending on the strength of the opposing god/human filled the typical Greek and later Roman and even Christians. The Greeks then saw the spiritual not as a singularity, but as multifaceted and multilayered with many levels of authoritarian influence, and even conflicted in desires.

I realize the above statements are VERY limited, and in every point there are huge lines and nuances of the views that were not addressed, but these were given to show how the impact of the Greek thinking of nature influenced the western and now the eastern cultures. Just as a recent graduate of Temple University - Japan said in her address to the graduates, “We are all Athenians.”

The Greek philosophical approach to the view of human nature has been thoroughly ingrained into all the educational, political, social, and corporate/business models of the western systems, which continues and even to this modern time; it can impact how one presents the view and teaching of even the Scriptures.

 

Not at all. The fact is that the two natures are inseparable and in complete union.

It is YOU who want to maintain that the natures are separated and distinctive which is in direct conflict with the Chalcedonian Creed, the Nicene Creed, the LBC (1689) and even the Westminster as it applies to this thread.

Because as those statements indicate, the natures were put in union, they became in effect singular. As the Chalcedonian Creed states, "...inconfusedly, unchangeably, indivisibly, inseparably; 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 Person and one Subsistence, not parted or divided into two persons, but one and the same Son, and only begotten..."

Would you deny the "indivisibly and inseparably" as well as "not parted or divided?"

Would you actually suggest that the preserving of the properties of each nature prevents the union into singular "concurrence" (agreement) in Christ?

Would you actually suggest that Christ as double minded and double spirited by attempting to declare that the union of the two natures was somehow incomplete that the two natures could actually oppose each other?

Some on the BB have actually argued these very points! They would state that the human nature will stood in opposition to the will of God when faced with the final hours before the Cross. Some would be determined to separate the union of the natures, and have gone to great strengths in order to maintain that view. Not understanding that the union obliges complete cooperation of the two natures as a singularity - not divided, not separated.

Would you want to deny the union, and seek Scriptural support for retaining some great divide in which you can distinguish between the human and divine nature of Christ?

Such just cannot be Scripturally accomplished.


Now, the matter of the soul.

Again, I remind you that the word soul does not pertain to the flesh. It is that part that in humankind is eternal, rational, and the identification of self. It is the lusts and desires of the flesh that Satan uses in attacking the believer to drag down, pervert, and mar the soul. (Peter 2:11)

Satan attacked Christ by appealing to the fleshly desires in attempt of perverting His soul.

Because Christ is God in the flesh, when Satan attacked Christ, he was in effect attacking God.

Because Christ is God and has a soul, then it also follows that God has a soul.

The soul is specifically mention in the creation of Adam. God breathed (blew hard as if in anger) life into the nostrils of Adam and he became a living (alive) soul. The word "soul" pertains in general to any breathing creature and specifically to the vitality of the creature. When the soul departs, the vitality of the flesh ceases.

Some would apply "soul" only to humankind. I don't spend time on that issue, it is of very little importance, but I included this nuance of creation to point out that soul is not flesh and blood but provides flesh and blood the vitality of life.

Because God made humankind in His "likeness," it is not an indicator that God is flesh and blood, but of vitality (soul) and spirit. The first Adam was a living soul, the second Adam a quickening Spirit.

Now, about the issue raised about the "title" of the OP which seems to be a stress to some on the BB.

I used it to make a statement about some who simply want to retain the two natures of Christ as being able to be distinctive, distinguished, and make attempts to present Christ in a divine manifestation in some areas and then in human manifestation in others.

In doing so, they must by default present Christ with two minds, two hearts, two wills (as has been argued on the board when discussing the garden scene the evening of the arrest), the two deaths or not (again argued on the BB as to just how did Christ being God die),... two of everything.

This is not what the presentation of the Scriptures, the Creeds, nor Statements of Faith present.

The title of the op was an attempt to draw attention to the basic problem present when union of the natures is not the focus and the priority is placed upon maintaining the two natures.

Perhaps in my frailty my mind wanders and the typed words are not clear as to actual intent. That is why I have repeatedly called for the scholarship of those highly educated in the Hebrew and Greek to call any misrepresentation of Scriptures to my attention.