Created Humanity of Christ: A "Foolish Theology"

Jesus Christ, fully God, fully man, as generally described in the Chalcedonian Definition.
Presbyterian Deacon
Co-Admin
Co-Admin
Joined: 03 Jan 2009, 13:43

18 Apr 2016, 08:03 #151

Reformed Baptist:24657 wrote:Orchadman,

Thanks for the response, I am enjoying this discussion immensely.
So the issue is whether the inability of Christ to sin was the result of Divinity overwhelming a humanity that was otherwise able to sin in its natural state (and experience all other fallen human conditions related to that 'potential' )or whether Christ was unable to sin even when considering His human nature alone, due to His special conception (Luke 1:35 applies here for me).
(emphasis added)

Friend, if you think that is what is being suggested then perhaps I am guilty of not making my explanations clear enough. No one here is suggesting that the divine nature of Jesus 'overwhelms' the human nature as such language suggests unwilling subjugation. The mystery of the incarnation is that Jesus is both man and God in one person. It is essential that we retain the last part of that statement in all our considerations for this is where we have the checks and balances - the natures of Jesus are always in perfect concord and agreement, they never act contrary to each other. We cannot say, 'Jesus in his human nature wanted to do X or Y but his divine nature restrained him' It is not that the divine 'overwhlems' the human for then Jesus would not be the God man but rather his humanity would be akin to some of avatar, rather it is that the divine so influences and blesses the human that the person of Jesus is impeccable.

Now, I don't mean to be rude or overstep any boundaries with the query I am about to offer, (if I have done please accept my apologies) but I wonder if your proper rejection of what you have been taught in that 'Wesleyan' church has led to you going further in the opposite direction then perhaps Scripture actually warrants?
:kudopost:

Two natures. One Person. Both natures co-exist in perfect unity in the Person of the Son of God. We get into a theological quagmire when we start redefining either nature as some how "limited" or implying that Christ's human nature is not like ours in every respect (Hebrews 2:17). Christ is fully human and fully divine.
Sterling A. Harmon, Jr.
Ruling Elder, Presbyterian Church of Coventry (PCA)
Follow me on Twitter: @sterling_harmon

" 'Always uplifting...never discouraging.' -- Bah Humbug! It's not easy being a Puritan in a K-LOVE world!" -- Me
Reply

orchardman
Invested Member
Invested Member
Joined: 20 Mar 2015, 01:56

19 Apr 2016, 09:38 #152

Well, I guess my summary was obviously unclear and confusing.  So let me quote another Reformed theologian who straight-out takes the position I'm opposed to.  Maybe this will clarify the difference in position better than anything else I have said.    I believe this is contradictory to Hodge's lengthy Christology overall on the Deity and oneness of Christ's person (in opposition to Nestorianism), except that Hodge elsewhere in the work defends a position that Christ had a fallible human will, which for me is in harmony with the quote below and is a true Nestorian position.  One person/two wills does not work, the God-man Jesus Christ had a single divine-human personhood and therefore a single divine-human will.  I will have to study Shedd further to see if he suggests anything anywhere like what Hodge teaches on Christ's temptations in this quote and the potential of sin, I saw nothing like that in reading him before.
The Mediator between God and man must be sinless. Under the law the victim offered on the altar must be without blemish. Christ, who was to offer Himself unto God as a sacrifice for the sins of the world, must be Himself free from sin. The High Priest, therefore, who becomes us, He whom our necessities demand, must be holy, harmless, undefiled, and separate from sinners. (Hebrews vii. 26.) He was, therefore, without sin. (Hebrews iv. 15; 1 Peter ii. 22.) A sinful Saviour from sin is an impossibility. He could not have access to God. He could not be a sacrifice for sins; and He could not be the source of holiness and eternal life to his people. This sinlessness of our Lord, however, does not amount to absolute impeccability. It was not a non potest peccare. If He was a true man He must have been capable of sinning. That He did not sin under the greatest provocation; that when He was reviled He blessed; when He suffered He threatened not; that He was dumb, as a sheep before its shearers, is held up to us as an example. Temptation implies the possibility of sin. If from the constitution of his person it was impossible for Christ to sin, then his temptation was unreal and without effect, and He cannot sympathize with his people.

It was no less necessary that our Mediator should be a divine person. The blood of no mere creature could take away sin. It was only because our Lord was possessed of an eternal Spirit that the one offering of Himself has forever perfected them that believe. None but a divine person could destroy the power of Satan and deliver those who were led captive by him at his will. None but He who had life in Himself could be the source of life, spiritual and eternal, to his people.


This is from page 457 as numbered in the downloaded vol. 2, p. 337 in the original page footer.  The link to download and read the work is at:

http://www.ntslibrary.com/PDF%20Books%2 ... y%20II.pdf

Orchardman
Standing for a point of truth is mere flight and disgrace if you ignore the broader truths God is presently launching upon the world.
Reply

orchardman
Invested Member
Invested Member
Joined: 20 Mar 2015, 01:56

19 Apr 2016, 09:58 #153

A link to a different source that I agree with on this issue and I think he is pretty clear:

http://graceonlinelibrary.org/doctrine- ... ur-w-pink/

One of the key quotes:
Personality centered not in His humanity. Christ was a Divine person, who had been made in the likeness of men (Phil. 2:7). Utterly impossible was it, then, for the God-man to sin. To affirm the contrary, is to be guilty of the most awful blasphemy. It is irreverent speculation to discuss what the human nature of Christ might have done if it had been alone. It never was alone; it never had a separate existence; from the first moment of its being it was united to a Divine person.

It is objected to the truth of Christs impeccability that it is inconsistent with His temptability. A person who cannot sin, it is argued, cannot be tempted to sin. As well might one reason that because an army cannot be defeated, it cannot be attacked.


We could go back to Tertullian and all the way through the history of Christian thought on the issue.  But I don't believe earlier 'set the stage' expounders of Christology have more authority than anyone else since.  They were still removed enough from the apostles that they did not have better resources than any teacher in any other age has.  

Orchardman
Standing for a point of truth is mere flight and disgrace if you ignore the broader truths God is presently launching upon the world.
Reply

DrWhofan1
RTI Guru
RTI Guru
Joined: 20 Oct 2014, 22:14

19 Apr 2016, 14:46 #154

Jesus has within Himself both the very nature of God, and also the very nature of perfect/sinless humanity...

He also has always done the will of the Father, so don't know how he is1/2 wills going on, as each member of the trinity have their own Wills, but also always have same Will somehow!
Reply

Reformed Baptist
Leading Member
Leading Member
Joined: 20 Nov 2015, 17:59

19 Apr 2016, 16:18 #155

orchardman:24676 wrote:A link to a different source that I agree with on this issue and I think he is pretty clear:

http://graceonlinelibrary.org/doctrine- ... ur-w-pink/

One of the key quotes:
Personality centered not in His humanity. Christ was a Divine person, who had been made in the likeness of men (Phil. 2:7). Utterly impossible was it, then, for the God-man to sin. To affirm the contrary, is to be guilty of the most awful blasphemy. It is irreverent speculation to discuss what the human nature of Christ might have done if it had been alone. It never was alone; it never had a separate existence; from the first moment of its being it was united to a Divine person.

It is objected to the truth of Christs impeccability that it is inconsistent with His temptability. A person who cannot sin, it is argued, cannot be tempted to sin. As well might one reason that because an army cannot be defeated, it cannot be attacked.


We could go back to Tertullian and all the way through the history of Christian thought on the issue. But I don't believe earlier 'set the stage' expounders of Christology have more authority than anyone else since. They were still removed enough from the apostles that they did not have better resources than any teacher in any other age has.

Orchardman
Brother,

I am sorry but I am really pushed for time tonight so this is going to have to be short. It the quote above Pink says nothing in regards to Jesus being impeccable in his humanity, rather what he warns of is the danger of trying to split the two natures of Jesus - which is precisely what I warned of in my first post in this subject. I woudl suggest that Pink and I are in complete agreement :yes:
"George Whitefield said, "We are all born Arminians." It is grace that turns us into Calvinists." Spurgeon
Reply

Presbyterian Deacon
Co-Admin
Co-Admin
Joined: 03 Jan 2009, 13:43

19 Apr 2016, 16:35 #156

Orchardman:

A.W.Pink
It is irreverent speculation to discuss what the human nature of Christ might have done if it had been alone. It never was alone; it never had a separate existence; from the first moment of its being it was united to a Divine person.


Your quote from Pink does not help your assertion that Christ's impeccability was "sourced from his human nature." Rather it underscores that your assertion is perhaps no better than the "irreverent speculation" of which he writes. I agree with Pink that Christ's human nature was never alone, that it was united to the divine nature, and as such incapable of sinning.
Sterling A. Harmon, Jr.
Ruling Elder, Presbyterian Church of Coventry (PCA)
Follow me on Twitter: @sterling_harmon

" 'Always uplifting...never discouraging.' -- Bah Humbug! It's not easy being a Puritan in a K-LOVE world!" -- Me
Reply

oldfish
Invested Member
Invested Member
Joined: 14 Jul 2010, 08:57

12 Oct 2017, 16:17 #157

Hi Patrick,
 
I have not been back for a while, however, it is nice to see this post is re-open for discussion.
 
The following is a translation of Mr. Ho’s new post on 2016-05-24.  Of course, he is not coming back since he has been determined by you guys – true Reformed Christian, to hold herectic Christology.  This new post shows that some hard-liners in Chinese Reformed has systematically improved their Appolinarian theory according to whatever biblical or theological resources.  This will make: 1) the ordinary believers (specially from Reformed circle) harder to distinguish the right and bad teaching; 2) the right Reformed theologian to argue and clarify the sound and true Reformed/Orthodox Christology with them. (You might also see that he shifts his position back and forth: from Christ has no created humanity -> Christ has a uncreated created humanity -> Christ has no created humanity.)
 
I think American Reformed belivers shall pay close attention to this development.  (you might want to use this article as an example, try to write out a counter-article. :) )  Reformed circle needs a lot of wisdom to resolve this problem.
 
Since, this is a Reformed bulletin, is designed for Reformed related discussion, therefore, I will not post Local Church’s materials to prove how Ho’s twists our teaching. (In fact, I suggest readers to ignores his attacks on Local Church and focus on his Christology argument.) However, I believe you will be able to see his technic via this article.
 
Last thing I want to point out: DON’T just look at the Terminologies he uses, but his UNDERSTANDING of terminologies.  Otherwise, you will be fooled.  “begotten Vs created” is just a good example.
 
It is LONG…. Please be patient….  It is a HARD job to translate it anyway…. And sorry about any poor translation 😉
 
Oldfish
 

 
<The ChalcedonianFormula Declares the “begotten” of the Humanity of Christ>
 
Dated: 2016-05-24 12:06:50
 
URL: http://blog.sina.com.cn/s/blog_6151b1790102wopm.html
 
(1)                   The Chalcedonian uses the following way to discuss the divinity and humanity of Christ:
 
co-essential with the Father according to the Godhead, the Self-same co-essential with us according to the Manhood; like us in all things, sin apart; before the ages begotten of the Father as to the Godhead, but in the last days, the Self-same, for us and for our salvation (born) of Mary the Virgin Theotokos as to the Manhood; One and the Same Christ, Son, Lord, Only-begotten; acknowledged in Two Natures unconfusedly, unchangeably, indivisibly, inseparably; the difference of the Natures being in no way removed because of the Union, but rather the properties of each Nature being preserved, and (both) concurring into One Person and One Hypostasis; not as though He were parted or divided into Two Persons, but One and the Self-same Son and Only-begotten God, Word, Lord, Jesus Christ;
 
Please pay special attention to the following sentence: “but in the last days, the Self-same, for us and for our salvation (born) of Mary the Virgin Theotokos as to the Manhood”. I have found an English translation:
 
...as far as his divinity goes, begotten of the Father before the ages, but as far as his humanity goes begotten for us and our salvation of the Virgin Mary, the Mother of God;
 
(This translation is from Jonathan Hill’s <The History of Christian Thought>, some of North American theological seminaries take it as a must-read textbook.)
 
“begotten” in English means “begotten”. Which is also, according to the divinity, Jesus Christ is “begotten” from Holy Father; according to humanity, Jesus Christ is also “begotten”, but through Virgin Mary.<Chalcedonian Formula> calls Virgin as “the Mother of God” (Greek Theotokos mean “The human bears God”) could easily trigger misunderstandings and arguments, but the Formula itself stress at the fact that the person born from Mary is Son of God, this is a side-protray of Incarnation, also a fight-back against Nestorianism.
 
However, I want the reader to recognize that the way how “begotten” is used. < Chalcedonian Formula >’s Greek text only use once of γεννηθέντα,  which means begotten or is born from (English translation is begotten or born), only used for the description of Christ’s divinity in the first half of the phrase, and is absent in the later half.  In order to make the later half more readable, English translators always add on the words begotten or born, such as the translation in the English Wiki:
 
...before the ages begotten of the Father as to the Godhead, but in the last days, the Self-same, for us and for our salvation (born) of Mary the Virgin Theotokos as to the Manhood;
 
In summary, when < Chalcedonian Formula > treats the origins for the divinity and humanity of Christ, it uses the same greek wordγεννηθέντα/ begotten/born, means “begotten” or “is born from”. This proofs that < Chalcedonian Formula > does not recognize the divinity of Christ as “begotten” and humanity as “creatd”, but also stresses the humanity of Christ as “begotten”.
 
On one hand, we confess that Christ is born from Virgin Mary, means his humanity and Mary’s humanity are con-substantial, this is a confirmation of the truth humanity assumed by Jesus; at the other hand, Mary as “Mother of God”, which is also  “the human who bears God”, her Son is not just a human son, but also the only-begotten Son of God --- Heavenly Father makes conception in Mary, then, Son of God is born through Mary as son of man, processed both divinity and humanity at the same time. Under the operation and power of Holy Spirit, Holy Father “beget” the Son through Virgin. From the eternal relationship of the Trinity among the three distinct persons, Father ‘beget’ Son through the Holy Spirit;  from the historical event of the Incarnation, Father ‘beget’ the Holy Son as man through Holy Spirit and Mary --- the former is the “begotten” from eternity, the later is the historical “begotten”. Mary participated into the historical “begotten”, the “begotten” Holy Son is added by a “begotten” humanity.  We will discuss the resurrection of Jesus is also the “begotten” of Holy Son in the history, which is also Holy Father made the dead Jesus – who is both Holy Son and Human Son --- through Holy Spirit to resurrect.  According to this, the Incarnation and Resurrection of Jesus are both the extension of Holy Father’s “begotten” of Holy Son in history and time.
 
(2)
 
< Chalcedonian Formula > heavily emphasizes on Jesus’ “begotten” from Father, because the nature of “begotten” and “created” is different. Arianism claimed that Son is created, the Heresy of Witness Lee claimed that Christ is created (and sonized of the humanity of Christ) are both mistaken.
 
< Chalcedonian Formula > did not make up its view of the “begotten” of both the divinity and humanity of Christ, this is biblical view. Bible talks about Jesus Christ’s ”begotten”, which is not limited to “the eternal birth”, at the resurrection of Jesus Christ, bible also uses the word “begotten”. Act 13 records Paul preached at Antiach, uses the verse from Psalms 2:7:
 
“You are my Son, I have begotten you.”
 
NRSV translates as “I have begotten you”, in both Herew (יְלִדְתִּֽיךָ׃/yalad) and Greek (γεγέννηκά), both words mean “begotten”, not “created”. Paul used this verse to proof Bible did talk about Jesus’ resurrection, and connect it with the “begotten” of Holy Son from holy Father. This verse has a great theological meanings in NT, it tells us, either from the viewpoint of eternity or any moment in history, Jesus is “begotten” from God, not “created” from God. Witness Lee and his Local Church followers intentionally confuse the different of the nature of “begotten” and “created”, they believe that “begotten” is “created”, this is a violation to biblical teaching. If we equals “begotten” to “created”, then, the prophecy of the resurrection of Jesus in Psalms has to be explained as Jesus is “created” as the Son of God at the moment of Resurrection, this is of course absurd.
 
Under the same principle, when Bible mentions Jesus is born from Mary, Angle spoke to mary :“the Son is going to be born, shall be called the Son of God” (Luke 1:35).  We cannot confuse the “begotten” here as “created”: if the humanity pregnant by Holy Spirit in Mary is be comprehended as Jesus is created in humanity, then, the “Son of God” becomes “created”.  Another verse is Galatians 4:4, Paul spoke of “But when the fullness of the time was come, God sent forth his Son, made of a woman, made under the law”, the “begotten/sent forth” here cannot be taken as “created”. < Chalcedonian Formula > emphasized on the “begotten” of the humanity of Christ, which is in accord with the revelation of Bible.
 
Therefore, Bible reveals, regardless at the month on Christ’s birth, or at the moment of His resurrection, his relationship with Father is ALWAYS “begotten” from Holy Father, not “created” by Holy Father or (Holy Spirit).  The theology generates from here is, even Christ as an human born in the world has a beginning in history and time, His resurrection also happened at a moment in the history, all these facts cannot make Jesus as a “creature” --- regardless his birth or his resurrection cannot change the fact that He is “begotten” in the humanity from the Father in the heaven.
 
Reader might doubt, Holy Father is not an human, how Jesus can be “begotten” in humanity from Holy Father? On one hand, we need to emphasizes again on the persons of the Holy son and Holy Father has an eternal relationship of “begotten”, the life of Son originated from Holy Father, this dynamic life will not be interrupted by the Incarnation or the Conception of the Holy Spirit, but appropriate the actions of Incarnation and Conception of the Holy Spirit into this dynamic life relationship, and manifest this relationship: it also manifest the “economic trinity” through “immense Trinity”; at another hand, we need to emphasize that Jesus is not simply “begotten” from Mary – Mary is not a ordinary mother given to the humanity of Jesus – but, Holy Father “beget” Jesus through Mary --- Holy Father “beget” Holy Son as an human by the power of Holy Spirit through Mary as a vessel, therefore, the action of assuming humanity from Mary is an action of “begotten” of Holy Son, not an action of “be created”. Jesus is eternally “first-born”, not “created”; Jesus is an unique “begotten” human, not a “created” human; the humanity of Jesus is not “created”, but “begotten”.
 
The “begotten” in divinity has no beginning,; His “begotten” in time has beginnings, one at birth, one at resurrection. For the birth and resurrection of Christ could be comprehended as: eternal Logos get into time, and bring time back into eternity; eternal Holy Son became man, to bring the believers back into eternity.
 
“Holy Son (Logos) in eternity, through the operation of Holy Spirit, beget in the eternity from Holy Father, when Holy Spirit came to Mary, appropriated the “biological process” of Holy Son’s Incarnation into the eternal “begotten” of the Holy Father, this is the “meaning” of Christ’s assumption of humanity.” (Li, Jin-Lun, <Incarnation as the Source of Salvation>, 171. Li is a Chinese/Taiwaness Reformed Theologian, who is a member of International Augustine Association. Li in fact stresses that Christ has a created humanity in the same book. :) )
 
In another words, Bible testifies, the humanity of Christ shall not be considered as “created” at the moment of birth and resurrection, but “begotten”. The birth of Jesus Christ shall be seen as the extension of Holy Son’s eternal “begotten” from Holy Father in the human history, only Mary participated into the action of “begotton” of the Holy Son in the history. The key is, Jesus Christ as Holy Son “begotten” eternally, and Jesus Christ as man “begotten” in a moment in history, and His “resurrection” – “begotten”, “got birth”, “resurrection” – are all inter-related, not separated and divided.  There is a junction between eternity and history, which appropriate the history an eternal meaning, this junction is the incarnation of Jesus Christ and his resurrection from the dead : the inauguration of the eschatology and the interruption of the kingdom of God begun here, this is the turning point of human history and peak of soteological history.
 
(3)
 
From 20th century, the doctrine of trinity has an important advancement by receiving the view of “immanent trinity” and “economic trinity”, combine them, not separate them, and make them harmonious: “immanent trinity” is “economic trinity”; “economic trinity” is also “immanent trinity.  This means that the Trinitarian God’s self-manifestation in economic works, which is in accordance with the Trinitarian life in the eternity. For example: historical incarnation, conception of Holy Spirit, all reflected the eternal “begotten” of Holy Son from Holy Father; the proceeding of Holy Spirit by Holy Father and Holy Son (or by Holy Father through Holy Son) to the disciples, also reflected the eternal proceeding of the Holy Spirit by Holy Father and Holy Son (or by Holy Father through Holy Son).
 
“Another important theological development is the study and re-consideration of the dynamic-eternal conception contained in the Bible by the theological circle.  Church Fathers has two views about the eternity, one is to put the eternity against time, another, consider eternity contains time, the later one is the view of dynamic-eternal view. Palms’ “from eternity to eternity, you are God” speak of the eternity of God bypasses the time of created world, and time is at the same time contained in the eternity. Historical time is relatively limited compared with eternity, but, every moment of historical time – “Now”, is related to eternity --- every moment in universe all ontologically shares the eternity of God’s Life”, “because they are related to eternity, therefore, they are ontologically real.”” (Li, Jin-Lun, <Ever-Living God as Lord of Life>, 257)
 
We need to pay attention to the action of Holy Father ‘beget’ holy Son through Holy Spirit is an action of “eternal begotten”, it is not on any time moment: in the eyes of Arianism, the existence of Holy Son has a beginning in time, this means that Holy Spirit is created.  Trinitarian God’s relationship between his three persons is not statistic, by dynamic-eternal. Father, Son, and Holy Spirit are eternally ‘inter-penetrated’ (perichoresis), inter-communicated. In another words, according to the eternal Trinitarian relationship, the “begotten” of Holy Son from Holy Father is a eternal-dynamic relationship, there is no beginning of “begotten”, there is also not end point of “begotten”.(Therefore, “begotten or not”, this kind of question cannot be applied on “eternal begotten”). But, for the incarnated Jesus Christ, He experienced the human birth, and resurrection in humanity, therefore, regardless Incarnation or Resurrection from dead, all shall be comprehended as the extension of “eternal begotten” in a given moment in history.
 
“… the resurrection of Christ, is in accord with the eternal-internal Trinitarian relationship, Son is begotten eternally from Father, with help from Holy Spirit …  in the process of Incarnation, the biological development of Jesus’ flesh is appropriated into eternal begotten, Holy Son lives in a flesh; the event of Jesus’ resurrection, is the resurrection inaugurated from eternal begotten … “ (Li, Jin-Lun, <Incarnation as the Source of Salvation>, 146).
 
Paul used Psalms 2:7 is indeed a testimony of the resurrection of Christ as fulfillment of Old Testament prophecy.  But this verse (“You are my Son, I have begotten you”)itself also contain the meaning of eternal begotten, therefore, it is quoted again in Hebrews 1:5, to speak out Jesus’ position and his relationship with Father far pass angles. In Collosians 1:15,18, Paul emphasize Jesus is both “first-born”, not “created”;the humanity of Jesus is assumed by Holy Son, the humanity united with divinity is different with other creatures.  Jesus’ humanity, is the humanity “begotten” from Mary through the operation and power of Holy Spirit, and by the Holy Son and Holy Father. The assumption of this humanity is different with the creation of other human beings, is an unique miracle and mystery, therefore, Jesus is NOT a created man, Jesus’ humanity is NOT a created humanity. May all churches declare and testify, Jesus Christ is “become” flesh, and not be “created” as flesh. Amen!
 
(End)
 
 
 
 
Reply

Ask Mr. Religion
Site Founder
Site Founder
Joined: 28 Jul 2008, 09:13

12 Oct 2017, 18:40 #158

It will take me (others??) some time to digest the translation, oldfish. Thank you for the effort!
AMR (a.k.a. Patrick)
Do You Confess?
Faculty PRBS
My Randomata Blog
Reply

oldfish
Invested Member
Invested Member
Joined: 14 Jul 2010, 08:57

12 Oct 2017, 21:44 #159

Ask Mr. Religion wrote: It will take me (others??) some time to digest the translation, oldfish. Thank you for the effort!
Welcome.

Another information: Ho Jun has written more than 30 articles since then, all are anti-Christ's humanity.  I think he is going to devote the rest of his life for Apollinariunism. :))  


By the way,: I have finished my MCS in a Reformed background Theological Seminary.  So, I am NOT naive (or idiot) theologically. :)
Reply

oldfish
Invested Member
Invested Member
Joined: 14 Jul 2010, 08:57

13 Oct 2017, 00:52 #160

Dear Patrick,
 
This is another shorter, but as interesting as well, article written by Ho Jun, dated this year.

There are so many Chinese churches around.  You can certainly find anyone of those to check the authentification of my translation. :P
 
Oldfish
 
 
How can the Body of Christ Not Created
 
Dated: (2017-06-29 08:46:26)
 
URL: http://blog.sina.com.cn/s/blog_6151b1790102xh8y.html
 
To discuss the topic on the Body of Christ, we of course need to use “two natures and one person” as our pre-assumption, will be skipped at here.
 
From the viewpoint of the construction of the humanity, the humanity of Christ includes his human soul and human body, Christ is a Real human with both soul and body, is not an independently exist one, and has no independent existing person, therefore, his humanity and divinity are jointed together --- “without division and without separation”; at the same time, the humanity and divinity of Christ are jointed together --- “without confusion and without change”, belong to the same person, which is uncreated person of the Holy Son. Bible never speaks of the humanity of Christ (including soul and body) as a separated creature from his divinity, the biblical expression is “Incarnation (Word became man)”, “He also become the flesh and body”, and so on.
 
According to classical theological definition, “creature” is something from without, and separated from Creator will infinite distance; the humanity of Christ (including soul and body) although has beginning in time, but “not divided and not separated” from the divinity of Creator, therefore, we have to be faithful to Bible, not bypass the Biblical revelation, defend the uniqueness of Word, not consider the soul and body of Christ as created.  Not to see the soul and body of Christ as creatures, it does not mean lessen or denial that Christ has true humanity, Christ has an human soul just like all others, He also has the True flesh and blood just like all others.  The body of Christ is not a phantom, but, as an human, Christ is begotten, not created, He is the ONLY sinless one in the entire history, only He is qualified to become the atonement on the cross for all selected, and worth to be worshipped by creation.
 
Next section will be focused on the body of Christ.
 
The body of Christ is just like yours and mine, has to be a body of flesh and blood.  We need to struggle to confirm the truthness of the body of Christ, fight against Docetism and all other heresies that deny the humanity of Christ. However, Christ has a Real fleshly body does not equal to the body of Christ (including soul) come to be through the means of create or be created, this will bring us back to “Incarnation” again. We could not ignore that Incarnation is a unique action, only when Holy Son experienced “Incarnation”, this is different with all other human beings.  If we are so self-confidence of Incarnation does not equal to Christ be created as human (because Christ has no created human person), we then could also inference that, the soul and body are not created.
 
From the viewpoint of Orthodox Christology, the divinity and humanity of Christ are “without division and without separation”, but, when we are performeing different theological expressions, still unconsciously apply human logics, express divinity and humanity of Christ separately, this easily produce the following result – according to divinity, Christ is not created, according to humanity, Christ is created – this in fact is a product out from limited and fallen human logics, which is unbiblical.
 
The humanity of Christ is not separated from his divinity, as an independently existing creature, therefore, the construction of the humanity of Christ – regardless his human soul and his human body, could not be comprehended as something separated from His divinity. This is a great mystery that challenges towards the human sensation and logics, which is exact the revelation received by Bible authors, and their testimonies.  Bible never appropriates the “incarnated” Lord Jesus Christ (including his whole Christ: person, divinity, humanity, soul, body) as creatures, it shows that, even the human body of Jesus Christ is not treated as a creature by Bible authors – we should put down out limited and fallen reason, come back the revelation of Bible.
 
Christ as a real human, his body of course is constructed by the materials from created world, not of something mystical or special materials. When we speak of the body of Christ is not created, we emphasize the operation of Holy Son become man is different than the creation of other human beings, but not deny Christ as a real human, process the same flesh and blood as you and me do.  We have to distinguish here: the OPERATION of Incarnation and RESULT of Incarnation --- the operation of Incarnation is different than the creation of all human beings; the result of Incarnation is for Christ to have Real material body of flesh and blood.
 
Human beings always make their conclusion based on sensational experience and logical inference, the result is always limited, or, even against Bible. For example, when someone SEE Christ came to John the Baptist for baptism, this man for see the baptism of John the Baptist is a baptism of repentance, therefore, he will inference that, Christ has to be a sinful human need to repent, otherwise, why He shall be baptized by John? But Bible (including Jesus Himself) tells us, Jesus is sinless, He is born “under the law’ according to the will of Heavenly Father, therefore, need to “fulfill all responsibilities”, he need to represent us to observe the Law, satisfies the requirement of Law, so that He could redeem those under the Law.  Therefore, if we only depend on the human sensational experience and logical inference, we must conclude that Jesus is a sinner and need to repent.  We shall return to Bible, based on biblical messages to make our conclusion and summary, and understand that Jesus is sinless and without flawtless, wholly holy Lamb, He is for our sake to receive the baptism from John, He also offers Himself as the perfect sacrifice for our sins.
 
We shall not based on our sensational experience to inference that Christ has a real fleshly body just like you and me, and conclude that Christ is a created human or the body of Christ is a creature. We must return to Bible, since Bible does not appropriate ‘incarnated’ Christ among the creation, He on contract sitting on the throne and receiving the praise and worship from all other creatures (Revelation 5:13), this proves that Christ as man is not created, His body can not also be seen as a creature.  Bible is flawtless, (specially on Christology) has not error at all, we shall turn back to Bible.

 (End)
 
 
Reply