• **Notifications**: Notifications can be dismissed by clicking on the "x" on the righthand side of the notice.
  • **New Style**: You can now change style options. Click on the paintbrush at the bottom of this page.
  • **Donations**: If the Lord leads you please consider helping with monthly costs and up keep on our Forum. Click on the Donate link In the top menu bar. Thanks
  • **New Blog section**: There is now a blog section. Check it out near the Private Debates forum or click on the Blog link in the top menu bar.
  • Welcome Visitors! Join us and be blessed while fellowshipping and celebrating our Glorious Salvation In Christ Jesus.

The Necessity of the Deity of Jesus and the Holy Spirit in Redemption

the ONLY Jesus that can save would be the One who is Very God very man
Hebrews 2:17 For this reason he had to be made like them,[k] FULLY HUMAN IN EVERY WAY, in order that he might become a merciful and faithful high priest in service to God, and that he might make atonement for the sins of the people. 18 Because he himself suffered when he was tempted, he is able to help those who are being tempted.

What Trinitarians need to realize is the 'hypostatic union' destroys the atonement. If Jesus was God that makes him a fraud and the cross a hoax.

The bible says he was tempted IN EVERY WAY AND THAT HE KNEW TEMPTATION. It also says that, "God cannot be tempted and therefore cannot sin."

If Jesus was God that means he could not have sinned anyway. (Back to the only Trinitarian answer of TWO NATURES) That makes the Word of God totally contradictory - makes Jesus a fraud because he never would have to overcome sin since he also being God couldn't have been tempted to sin anyway - ultimately making him a fraud and the cross a complete hoax and the atonement for sin a complete hoax - think about it.


We believe in the triune God, that God is one in being and consists of three co-equal yet distinct Persons: the Father, the Son, and the Holy Spirit. We believe that God is the Creator and Sustainer of the universe, and the he sovereignty rule over history.
 
Numbers 23:19 KJV
God is not a man, that he should lie; neither the son of man, that he should repent: hath he said, and shall he not do it? or hath he spoken, and shall he not make it good?

1 Samuel 15:29 KJV
And also the Strength of Israel will not lie nor repent: for he is not a man, that he should repent

Hosea 11:9 KJV
I will not execute the fierceness of mine anger, I will not return to destroy Ephraim: for I am God, and not man; the Holy One in the midst of thee: and I will not enter into the city.

Job 9:32 KJV
For he is not a man, as I am, that I should answer him, and we should come together in judgment.

Hebrews 6:18
So that by two unchangeable things, in which it is impossible for God to lie, we who have fled for refuge might have strong encouragement to hold fast to the hope set before us.

Numbers 23:19 KJV
God is not a man, that he should lie; neither the son of man, that he should repent: hath he said, and shall he not do it? or hath he spoken, and shall he not make it good?

1 Samuel 15:29 KJV
And also the Strength of Israel will not lie nor repent: for he is not a man, that he should repent

Hosea 11:9 KJV
I will not execute the fierceness of mine anger, I will not return to destroy Ephraim: for I am God, and not man; the Holy One in the midst of thee: and I will not enter into the city.

Job 9:32 KJV
For he is not a man, as I am, that I should answer him, and we should come together in judgment.\par

Hebrews 6:18
So that by two unchangeable things, in which it is impossible for God to lie, we who have fled for refuge might have strong encouragement to hold fast to the hope set before us.

If they are equal, why did Jesus say in John 14:28

"Ye have heard how I said unto you, I go away, and come again unto you. If ye loved me, ye would rejoice, because I said, I go unto the Father: FOR MY FATHER IS GREATER THAN I."

Why did he say in John 10:29,

"My Father, which gave them me, is greater than all; and no man is able to pluck them out of my Father's hand."

And why did Jesus say in John 13:16

"Verily, verily, I say unto you, The servant is not greater than his lord; neither he that is sent greater than he that sent him."
 
What Trinitarians need to realize is the 'hypostatic union' destroys the atonement. If Jesus was God that makes him a fraud and the cross a hoax.
The hypostatic union does not destroy the atonement. The hypostatic union does not say that the incarnate Son is not fully human. It shows God the Son coming as one of us in order to be our substitute for our redemption. The divine nature can never be removed from divinity. That being the case, the hypostatic union recognizes that Jesus had two natures. That of God. And that of man. The two natures never mix together but remain distinct in the one person, Jesus.

If you think that is impossible, then, being absolutely honest about it, one would need to question the virgin birth, Lazurus being raised from death and walking out of a tomb after being there, dead, for four days, the creation account, the future resurrection of the dead, and a multitude of other things we find in the Bible.

What destroys the atonement is saying that a mere human creature can qualify as a substitute for billions of sinners (over time). bear the penalty of their sins on his own flesh, face the wrath of God our sins deserve, and survive. It would mean that God was not capable of redemption on his own and needed the help of a man who he then exalted that man to God's own position as Judge
 
The bible says he was tempted IN EVERY WAY AND THAT HE KNEW TEMPTATION. It also says that, "God cannot be tempted and therefore cannot sin."
That is why God the Son came as one of us. He came as a substitute. He had to be of the same flesh and blood in order to die in our place. Jesus is not just God. But he is Emmanuel---God with us. It was Jesus Son of man who was being tempted. You cannot argue against the hypostatic union without knowing and understanding what it is.
If Jesus was God that means he could not have sinned anyway. (Back to the only Trinitarian answer of TWO NATURES) That makes the Word of God totally contradictory - makes Jesus a fraud because he never would have to overcome sin since he also being God couldn't have been tempted to sin anyway - ultimately making him a fraud and the cross a complete hoax and the atonement for sin a complete hoax - think about it.
The fact that he could not have sinned is tied to the eternal Covenant of Redemption, that is, the Father sent Jesus to redeem. Jesus came to do the work of redemption; the Holy Spirit came to apply that work to the individual. And that element is beside the point. Where did the incarnate Jesus live? In a sinful world, surrounded by nothing but sinners, facing the same temptations that all men face. He had the human capacity to give in to sin, but he did not. It is the opposite of Adam who was not created with a nature to sin but who had the volitional; agency to do so and did.
If Jesus was God that means he could not have sinned anyway. (Back to the only Trinitarian answer of TWO NATURES) That makes the Word of God totally contradictory - makes Jesus a fraud because he never would have to overcome sin since he also being God couldn't have been tempted to sin anyway - ultimately making him a fraud and the cross a complete hoax and the atonement for sin a complete hoax - think about it.
Mod Hat: I will give you a pass on that red lettered portion this once. There is no need of such an inflammatory attack of what is a core Christian doctrine.
 
Hebrews 2:17 For this reason he had to be made like them,[k] FULLY HUMAN IN EVERY WAY, in order that he might become a merciful and faithful high priest in service to God, and that he might make atonement for the sins of the people. 18 Because he himself suffered when he was tempted, he is able to help those who are being tempted.

What Trinitarians need to realize is the 'hypostatic union' destroys the atonement. If Jesus was God that makes him a fraud and the cross a hoax.

Quite the opposite. You should read up on Basil of Caesarea versus Apollinaris of Laodicea, and the First Council of Constantinople. Basil’s soteriology is rooted in the conviction that redemption occurs through the Incarnation itself: Christ saves not only by dying, but by living a fully and authentically human life. For Basil, the Son heals human nature precisely by assuming and exercising every dimension of it—thinking with a human mind, choosing with a human will, feeling with human emotions, suffering in a human body, and obeying as a human son. Salvation is therefore not external or merely forensic; it is internal, ontological, and participatory, a healing that works from within the very structures of human existence. Because Christ redeems by assuming and restoring what is ours, a Christ without a human mind cannot redeem the human mind. Apollinaris’s diminished Christ is therefore soteriologically powerless, whereas Basil’s fully human Christ is the true physician of humanity.

Basil’s central conviction is that Christ must possess everything essential to humanity in order to redeem humanity. This is not a philosophical preference but a soteriological necessity. So, he anticipates Gregory of Nazianzus who later maxim: “What is not assumed is not healed.”

Christ must heal the whole human nature.​

⦁ If Christ does not assume the human mind, then the human mind remains unhealed.

⦁ If Christ does not assume human will, then human will remain unredeemed.

⦁ If Christ does not assume human suffering, then human suffering remains untouched.

Basil therefore insists that Christ must assume:​

⦁ a human body

⦁ a human soul

⦁ a human rational mind

⦁ a human will

⦁ a human emotional life

⦁ a human developmental process

Taken from my own unpublished Christological paper. I think you should study before you project heretical beliefs to the Hypostatic Union. Your argument is what was made against Apollinarism and not against the Hypostatic Union. And history can be testified. And this was the verses that was used in the Council (Luke 2:52, Hebrews 2:17, 4:15, 5:8).
 
Hebrews 2:17 For this reason he had to be made like them,[k] FULLY HUMAN IN EVERY WAY, in order that he might become a merciful and faithful high priest in service to God, and that he might make atonement for the sins of the people. 18 Because he himself suffered when he was tempted, he is able to help those who are being tempted.

What Trinitarians need to realize is the 'hypostatic union' destroys the atonement. If Jesus was God that makes him a fraud and the cross a hoax.

The bible says he was tempted IN EVERY WAY AND THAT HE KNEW TEMPTATION. It also says that, "God cannot be tempted and therefore cannot sin."

If Jesus was God that means he could not have sinned anyway. (Back to the only Trinitarian answer of TWO NATURES) That makes the Word of God totally contradictory - makes Jesus a fraud because he never would have to overcome sin since he also being God couldn't have been tempted to sin anyway - ultimately making him a fraud and the cross a complete hoax and the atonement for sin a complete hoax - think about it.


We believe in the triune God, that God is one in being and consists of three co-equal yet distinct Persons: the Father, the Son, and the Holy Spirit. We believe that God is the Creator and Sustainer of the universe, and the he sovereignty rule over history.
Jesus being fully Human could experience temptation to sin, but being very God and having sinless humanity nature, could never actually sin
 
Comments? Perspectives?
How is such unity possible? If the "Father, existing before the ages, is always in glory, and the pre-temporal Son is His glory, and if in like manner the Spirit of Christ is the Son's glory, always to be contemplated along with the Father and the Son," then there can be no "before in what is timeless,"' nor can one person be "more honorable' in what is all essentially honorable," says Gregory of Nyssa. There is but one divinity, one glory, one honor, and one authority. The Son is just as honorable as the Father, which is precisely what the Jews missed when they nailed him to a cross. They dishonored the honorable Son of God, sent from the Father yet equal to the Father in every way. For he is none other than the Father's glory.

Jesus, however, is not the only one who understood his identity in such trinitarian terms, identifying himself with the one God of Israel. The apostle Paul also has much to say, and not just about the Son but the Spirit as well, helping us envision Israel's monotheism through a trinitarian lens.

To be continued....​
 
If Jesus was God that means he could not have sinned anyway. (Back to the only Trinitarian answer of TWO NATURES) That makes the Word of God totally contradictory - makes Jesus a fraud because he never would have to overcome sin since he also being God couldn't have been tempted to sin anyway - ultimately making him a fraud and the cross a complete hoax and the atonement for sin a complete hoax - think about it.
Sounds almost like the atheistic jeer that "all Jesus did was to take a dirt nap".

"Could not" have sinned? I'm guessing you also would say that (according to Calvinism) the salvation of the elect is automatic, and that there's no reason to evangelize.

But, God uses means to accomplish his ends. He did not sin, though tempted.
 
Sounds almost like the atheistic jeer that "all Jesus did was to take a dirt nap".

"Could not" have sinned? I'm guessing you also would say that (according to Calvinism) the salvation of the elect is automatic, and that there's no reason to evangelize.

But, God uses means to accomplish his ends. He did not sin, though tempted.
Jesus was not able to sin, but the temptation that h experienced was very real
 
How is such unity possible? If the "Father, existing before the ages, is always in glory, and the pre-temporal Son is His glory, and if in like manner the Spirit of Christ is the Son's glory, always to be contemplated along with the Father and the Son," then there can be no "before in what is timeless,"' nor can one person be "more honorable' in what is all essentially honorable," says Gregory of Nyssa. There is but one divinity, one glory, one honor, and one authority. The Son is just as honorable as the Father, which is precisely what the Jews missed when they nailed him to a cross. They dishonored the honorable Son of God, sent from the Father yet equal to the Father in every way. For he is none other than the Father's glory.

Jesus, however, is not the only one who understood his identity in such trinitarian terms, identifying himself with the one God of Israel. The apostle Paul also has much to say, and not just about the Son but the Spirit as well, helping us envision Israel's monotheism through a trinitarian lens.

To be continued....​
All 3 persons are equally God, equally honored etc
 
Jesus was not able to sin, but the temptation that h experienced was very real
Saying Jesus could not sin doesn’t make the temptations meaningless. It means the temptations were real, but His nature is perfectly holy. He is fully man, yet also fully God.....and God does not sin. If sin had truly been possible for Him, then His holiness would not be absolute, and He could not be the perfect standard He calls us to.
 
Saying Jesus could not sin doesn’t make the temptations meaningless. It means the temptations were real, but His nature is perfectly holy. He is fully man, yet also fully God.....and God does not sin. If sin had truly been possible for Him, then His holiness would not be absolute, and He could not be the perfect standard He calls us to.
Whether you meant to or not, your language just denied [libertarian] free will. It by definition is impossible, because it did not happen—and that, by God's decree. But God's holiness makes the outcome SURE, not automatic. The temptation was indeed real.
 
Whether you meant to or not, your language just denied [libertarian] free will. It by definition is impossible, because it did not happen—and that, by God's decree. But God's holiness makes the outcome SURE, not automatic. The temptation was indeed real.
You’re importing a philosophical definition of libertarian free will into a discussion about Christ that Scripture itself never frames that way.

Saying Christ must have been able to sin for the temptation to be real misunderstands what temptation actually is. Temptation is not defined by the possibility of failure, but by the reality of the testing. The pressure was real. The suffering was real. The obedience was real.

God’s holiness doesn’t just make sin unlikely~it makes sin impossible, because sin is contrary to His nature.

And that’s the key point: Christ is not a human person who might go either way. He is the divine Son who took on human nature. His will is not detached from His nature ~it is perfectly aligned with it.

So this doesn’t deny free will. Christ acted willingly, not mechanically. But His will was perfectly holy because He is.

Saying the outcome was merely “sure but not automatic” tries to preserve a philosophical category that actually weakens His sinlessness. It introduces a hypothetical capacity for sin that Scripture never attributes to Him.

The temptations were real precisely because He endured them fully, without ever yielding. That is what makes His obedience perfect, not questionable.
 
makesends said:
Whether you meant to or not, your language just denied [libertarian] free will. It by definition is impossible, because it did not happen—and that, by God's decree. But God's holiness makes the outcome SURE, not automatic. The temptation was indeed real.
You’re importing a philosophical definition of libertarian free will into a discussion about Christ that Scripture itself never frames that way.
I'm tempted to say, "Yes—problem?" But on retrospect I'm pretty sure it does put the two together several places. Right offhand, it occurs to me rather obviously that God has predestined many specific things. It certainly doesn't deny that God's holy decree is SURE to come to pass in empirical fashion. But, I'm guessing you mean something else by what you are saying.

Or, I'm tempted to say, "Of course not! God doesn't speak of libertarian free will. There never has been such a thing in the creature."
Saying Christ must have been able to sin for the temptation to be real misunderstands what temptation actually is. Temptation is not defined by the possibility of failure, but by the reality of the testing. The pressure was real. The suffering was real. The obedience was real.
I agree completely. I wasn't disagreeing with you there.
God’s holiness doesn’t just make sin unlikely~it makes sin impossible, because sin is contrary to His nature.
I agree. However, the reason I gave applies. God has so ordered things that it is obviously impossible by [at least] the two different perspectives.
And that’s the key point: Christ is not a human person who might go either way. He is the divine Son who took on human nature. His will is not detached from His nature ~it is perfectly aligned with it.
Yes, ...but: That's a long way from all there is to say about it. There is no "human person that might go either way" in God's perspective. He knows precisely which way anybody will go, including his Son. That makes it SURE.
So this doesn’t deny free will. Christ acted willingly, not mechanically. But His will was perfectly holy because He is.
Just as I tell those that mock determinism and compatibilism.
Saying the outcome was merely “sure but not automatic” tries to preserve a philosophical category that actually weakens His sinlessness. It introduces a hypothetical capacity for sin that Scripture never attributes to Him.
Did I say it was "merely" anything? If my point is valid, it is true. God's decretive will is SURE to come to pass. There is no God who risks, no matter what our perspective renders.
The temptations were real precisely because He endured them fully, without ever yielding. That is what makes His obedience perfect, not questionable.
Let me restate that: "[We can see[know] that] the temptations were real precisely because He endured them fully, without ever yielding. That is what makes His obedience perfect, not questionable." They were indeed real. And your point is well stated, well taken, and works just as precisely within God's predetermined plan.
 
Whether you meant to or not, your language just denied [libertarian] free will. It by definition is impossible, because it did not happen—and that, by God's decree. But God's holiness makes the outcome SURE, not automatic. The temptation was indeed real.
Jesus being very god could not sin, as there are things even God cannot do, as tat would violate His divine attributes and very nature, but in his sinless humanity, he experienced sin temptation far cleaner and purer then we can, as we enjoy sinnining, part of us wants to do that, he totally replused by it
 
Jesus being very god could not sin, as there are things even God cannot do, as tat would violate His divine attributes and very nature, but in his sinless humanity, he experienced sin temptation far cleaner and purer then we can, as we enjoy sinnining, part of us wants to do that, he totally replused by it
Tell me something God cannot do. "God cannot lie". That is a logical self-contradiction. It is not "a thing". Tell me something else God cannot do.

JesusFan said:
Jesus being very god could not sin,

Correct. It is a logical self-contradiction, therefore, not "a thing".


JesusFan said:
...there are things even God cannot do

Name me one.


Our use of language does steer us about.
 
Last edited:
God has so ordered things that it is obviously impossible by [at least] the two different perspectives.
Perhaps saying he "won't sin because his very purpose in coming as one of us was to be a perfectly righteous man--a covenant between Father, Son, and Holy Spirit and for gathering covenant people---rather than to use the word "impossible". I can understand @Rella push back against that.
 
All 3 persons are equally God, equally honored etc
The Son as God according to essence is authoeos; he is God of himself. However, the Son according to his person is begotten from the Father in a processional relation (Filiation/Sonship). The Spirit of God according to his essence is autotheos; God of himself. His Aseity is not dependent on another. The Spirit of God according to his according to his person is from the Father and the Son in an ordered processional taxis. So, whether we're thinking of the Son or the Spirit we're simply saying something along these lines, that with reference to essence the Son and Spirit is God of himself; and with reference to person; Son from Father & Spirit from Father and Son. Another way to try to clarify this, is that the processional relations of distinction in the Godhead; Eternal Filiation: Father & Son; Eternal Spiration: Father, Son, and Holy Spirit, that those processional relations of distinctions occur within the irreducible Triune Being of God.

The essence is not tripersonalized in the processions, rather the processions occur within a tripersonalized essence, common to all. Another way of putting this, initially the essence does not process along with the persons; persons process in generation & spiration the essence does not process along with those relations of persons (proper distinction). Rather, the essence simple is the three persons and the three simple are the divine essence. We must remember to distinguish and maintain what is common (essence) to each person, and what is proper to each person in the processions. We also must possess a solid understanding in distinguishing between, what is common (essence) and proper (persons/distinctions) in our grammar of trinitarian orthodoxy.

The Son is Authotheos; God of himself. So, we deny that the Son possesses Aseity from the Father. Because that would violate what is common to each person. So, the Son is God of himself as such he has Aseity from himself. By its very definition what is (A SE)(of and by Himself) cannot be communicated from another because it entails the coordinate notion of independence from another. What is (A SE)(of and by Himself) is independent; what is independent is A SE.​
 
The Bible refers to the substitutionary death of Christ on behalf of the sinner as a debt that must be paid to satisfy God's justice against sin and the sinner. A just God (that is who he is along with all his attributes, not just something he possess) cannot simply overlook sin without violating his very essence of holy. It can be temporarily covered as to final judgment as is illustrated for us in the animal sacrifices for those in a covenant relationship. But even then, it was a substitute of death for temporary life.

In looking at the magnitude of the debt, and the condition of humanity as sinners by nature, we can see why Jesus must be fully human and fully God. and we can see why the Holy Spirit must also be deity through the work that Scripture says he does---first in regeneration (John 3; John 1).

We can only begin to grasp the height from which we fell, and the necessity of God himself to change that condition, when we begin to grasp the holiness of God. And the holiness of God can only be grasped by contemplating him (not us) in his word, and across all sound theological doctrines. Focused, intentional, looking, at his actions of both blessing and judgement that reveal who he is. By not looking at him as a being composed of attribute parts but as a being who is those attributes as essence. Here too we will begin to see that he is a trinity of Father, Son, and Holy Spirit, for Scripture shows all three as participants in redemption of sinners.

From that perspective we can begin to see the height from which we fell as creatures having been created in his image and likeness, and how great our debt is. How impossible it is for another creature, no matter how "good" they are, to accomplish what Christ accomplished on the cross by paying that debt for us on his human body. A creature, a created human being would first have to pay for himself by virtue of being created/born in Adam, even if he had no sin of his own. His value as a created human would simply not have the holy value to accommodate the debt owed. It would not have the power to do so because it would not possess the power of God required to defeat sin and death. Only God possesses that power and only God has that prerogative. He cannot give it to another, as some unitarian thought claims, or he would lessen himself.

The Holy Spirit too, must be personal and deity because Scripture presents him as "person". Personal pronouns as to his actions. We see him in Gen 1 as hovering over the face of the waters, and darkness was over the face of the deep. God said let there be light and there was light. The Holy Spirit producing the light at Gods request. In verse 26 God said, "let us make man---", plural. In John 1:3,10; Col1:16; 1 Cor 8:6 Jesus is creator. Which would mean that the one Jesus calls Father (God) are there together in the beginning creating. There are three involved in doing what only God can do. The Holy Spirit is distinctly named in the creation account. He is distinctly named in redemption.

The Holy Spirit as distinct is shown taking certain types of action throughout Scripture and is shown as the one who brings about the new birth, and the one who seals and indwells the believer. Doing things only God can do. All three persons of the Trinity, all equal in essence of deity are absolutely necessary in redemption.
The Son as God according to essence is authoeos; he is God of himself. However, the Son according to his person is begotten from the Father in a processional relation (Filiation/Sonship). The Spirit of God according to his essence is autotheos; God of himself. His Aseity is not dependent on another. The Spirit of God according to his person is from the Father and the Son in an ordered processional taxis. So, whether we're thinking of the Son or the Spirit we're simply saying something along these lines, that with reference to essence the Son and Spirit is God of himself; and with reference to person; Son from Father & Spirit from Father and Son. Another way to try to clarify this, is that the processional relations of distinction in the Godhead; Eternal Filiation: Father & Son; Eternal Spiration: Father, Son, and Holy Spirit, that those processional relations of distinctions occur within the irreducible Triune Being of God.

The essence is not tripersonalized in the processions, rather the processions occur within a tripersonalized essence, common to all. Another way of putting this, initially the essence does not process along with the persons; persons process in generation & spiration the essence does not process along with those relations of persons (proper distinction). Rather, the essence simple is the three persons and the three simple are the divine essence. We must remember to distinguish and maintain what is common (essence) to each person, and what is proper to each person in the processions. We also must possess a solid understanding in distinguishing between, what is common (essence) and proper (persons/distinctions) in our grammar of trinitarian orthodoxy.

The Son is Authotheos; God of himself. So, we deny that the Son possesses Aseity from the Father. Because that would violate what is common to each person. So, the Son is God of himself as such he has Aseity from himself. By its very definition what is (A SE)(of and by Himself) cannot be communicated from another because it entails the coordinate notion of independence from another. What is (A SE)(of and by Himself) is independent; what is independent is A SE.
 
Last edited:
Back
Top