Question for Arminians and Calvinists on foreknowledge

[Arial]

"Close attention to" is following:

So, according to the above, the one person is both divine and human, not just divine,
and only the antichrist denies it.

I do wish you would start quoting and posting correctly. I can't quote your post without it going all wonky because you put those bracketed "quotes" in there, so here is the rest of what you said: "rather than bypassing it because they can't be bothered with long posts, even if it might be of great value in growth and learning.
Time to put your money where our mouth is when we claim to come here to learn.
The mouth seems to be the above."

Sorry I really can't make heads or tails out of what you are suggesting. But one person, Jesus, has two natures. A human nature. And a divine nature. Hypostatic union. Two natures in one person. Not two persons. Not two natures intermingled and mixed one with the other but always distinct. The nature of the divine. And the nature of the human.

 

[Ritajanice]

Sorry I really can't make heads or tails out of what you are suggesting. But one person, Jesus, has two natures. A human nature. And a divine nature. Hypostatic union. Two natures in one person. Not two persons. Not two natures intermingled and mixed one with the other but always distinct. The nature of the divine. And the nature of the human.

Are you saying Jesus has 2 natures, a human nature and a divine nature?

I’m trying to understand whose saying what here?

 

[Eleanor]

Sorry I really can't make heads or tails out of what you are suggesting.

Post #473 is eminently clear.
Post #474 is incomplete.

 

[Arial]

Are you saying Jesus has 2 natures, a human nature and a divine nature?

I’m trying to understand whose saying what here?

Yes that is what I am saying.

But one person, Jesus, has two natures. A human nature. And a divine nature. Hypostatic union. Two natures in one person. Not two persons. Not two natures intermingled and mixed one with the other but always distinct. The nature of the divine. And the nature of the human.

 

[Arial]

Post #473 is eminently clear.
Post #474 is incomplete.

Not to me it isn't. Unless of course you are misapplying the expression "put our money where our mouth is." and insulting someone in a way of plausible deniability. I tend to bypass the passive aggressive (a statement not an accusation!)as I find forthright aggression to be an honest approach if one must be aggressive at all. And maybe I completely misunderstood, in which case I back track, but that would because it is the only sense I can make of it.

 

[Eleanor]

Are you saying Jesus has 2 natures, a human nature and a divine nature?

I’m trying to understand whose saying what here?

The issue is two natures in one person (orthodoxy).

Eleanor presents the one person as both divine and human.

Civic presents the one person as only divine,
while his presentation of hypostatic union (jpost #422, #5) presents the one person as both divine and human (shown in post #451).

 

[Ritajanice]

The issue is two natures in one person (orthodoxy).

Eleanor presents the one person as both divine and human.

Civic presents the one person as only divine,
while his presentation of hypostatic union presents the one person as both divine and human.[/U]

Can you explain what you are presenting again @Eleanor ...or direct me to one of your posts please.

Sorry you already did..apologies.

 

[Ritajanice]

The issue is two natures in one person (orthodoxy).

Eleanor presents the one person as both divine and human.

Civic presents the one person as only divine,
while his presentation of hypostatic union (jpost #422, #5) presents the one person as both divine and human[/U] (shown in post #451).

I agree with....one person as both divine and human....Jesus had his own human will....but was predestined to do the will of the Father ?...he sought the will of the Father?..

 

[Eleanor]

Can you explain what you are presenting again @Eleanor ...or direct me to one of your posts please.

Sorry you already did..apologies.

It's in my edited post #480, which you have quoted above.

 

[Ritajanice]

It's in my edited post, which you have quoted above.

Yes, apologies ,I missed it...so much confusion I’m finding....I have slowed right down...just taking everything in and asking questions..

 

[Eleanor]

Yes, apologies ,I missed it...so much confusion I’m finding....I have slowed right down...just taking everything in and asking questions.

When it comes to orthodox explanation of the Trinity and the Incarnation, it all gets very technical, for philosophy of the nature of man gets involved in defining terms.

 

[civic]

The issue is two natures in one person (orthodoxy).

Eleanor presents the one person as both divine and human.

Civic presents the one person as only divine,
while his presentation of hypostatic union (jpost #422, #5) presents the one person as both divine and human (shown in post #451).

That’s a flat out falsehood . He is a Divine Person having both a human and Divine nature . One Person , 2 natures . Get your facts straight and don’t misrepresent me.

 

[CrazyCalvinistUncle]

That's because it can't mean what some say it means

Sure it can...when it means what it says.

that Jesus had a will that was opposed to the will of God, but did God's will anyway, and be consistent with other teachings of the Bible.

That's not what it says. I can quote it again if you like. You need to stop reading things into the text for your purposes, Arial.

It simply means that His human nature dreaded what was to come. He wouldn't be human if He didn't. It means He was suffering the maximum suffering of the Suffering Servant.

Agreed...which is why He asked that if possible it pass Him by. His will was that it pass Him by *but* His Father's will was more important too Him.

Agree.

Apparently not since we still disagree. But that's ok.

I didn't/don't label you as anything. A simple response is simply a response.

That was more Civic's thing. He's good with labels.

 

[CrazyCalvinistUncle]

But I am getting better at it by simply accepting it since it is what the Bible says.

The irony is incredibly thick.

/runs

 

[GeneZ]

done nothing either good or bad—in order that God's purpose of election might continue, not because of works but because of him who calls— Romans 9:11.

The reason for Romans 9:11 being written?
To shut down Jewish self righteousness that saturated the Jewish mind set at that time.

What then shall we say? That the Gentiles, who did not pursue righteousness, have obtained it, ​

a righteousness that is by faith; but the people of Israel, who pursued the law as the way of ​

righteousness, have not attained their goal. ​

Why not? Because they pursued it not by faith but as if it were by works. They stumbled over
the stumbling stone." Rom 9:30-32

Romans 9:11 was setting up for the demolition of the concept of salvation by works, which many Jews were guilty of pursuing.
Romans 9 was written about the problem with what had become corrupted Jewish Pharisaical thinking.

Election was according to what God knew was in the heart of the person. Not because of the works one chooses to do as the
means to win God's approval. The Jews who were indoctrinated with Pharisaical legalism were just as dumb and brainwashed
as we see Catholics today who believe their salvation is according to their adherence to the dogma of the Vatican.

As the Pharisees were to distorting the Law, so it is with the Vatican today with its brainwashing of Catholics into superstitious
works and dogma for salvation...

 

[KatarinaVonBora]

Adam was just like us, but with a Live Human spirit. He was Created Peccable, not Perfect; but we are born Evil...

Christ's Resurrection Body is Flesh and Bone, different from Adam's Flesh and Blood Body...

*Adam's Body Devolved but Christ's Body Evolved...


And before anybody criticizes my wording; No, I don't mean worldly Evolution. It's a shame to have to put Asterisks on my statements...

It's a joy to read your posts!

 

[Eleanor]

That’s a flat out falsehood . He is a Divine Person having both a human and Divine nature . One Person , 2 natures . Get your facts straight and don’t misrepresent me.

The record speaks for itself.

Civic presents the one person with two natures as only divine (post #340), while
his presentation of hypostatic union (post #422, #5) presents the one person as both divine and human (shown in post #451).

 

[fastfredy0]

Good point Eleanor

Civic presents the one person with two natures as only divine (post #340), while
his presentation of hypostatic union (post #422, #5) presents the one person as both divine and human (shown in post #451).

Post #340

Well of course since the humanity of the Son did not exist until the Incarnation.

Like I keep saying ( along with the Creeds and Orthodoxy )His Person is Divine, not human.

Post #422 / #451

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)

 

[civic]

Good point Eleanor



Post #340


Post #422 / #451

She doesn’t know what she is affirming . Jesus is a divine person ( 1 Person) with a human nature . He is not both a human and divine person as nestorious taught .

 

[fastfredy0]

She doesn’t know what she is affirming . Jesus is a divine person ( 1 Person) with a human nature . He is not both a human and divine person as nestorious taught .

@Eleanor made a good point. Two of your posts seem to contradict each other.
Post #340 His Person is Divine, not human.
Post #422 The Person of Jesus will always be both Divine and human

Now, could be a typo or semantics or definitional issue ...but something seems amiss.