Word of Faith Member

• Messages sorted by:[ date ][ thread ][ subject ][ author ]

 >...this sounds like Nestorianism to me.  

I am not familiar with this term.  What are the tennets of
this Philosophy?

>Is the word "incarnation" the thing that bothers you??  

Yes.

>Granted, it is not a biblical term (neither is Oneness),
but it adequately describes the union of the dual natures
resident in Christ.
 
There was only one nature in Jesus Christ.  To please the
Father. 

> Incarnation: that act of grace whereby Christ took our
human nature into union with his Divine Person, became man.
Christ is both God and man. Human attributes and actions
are predicated of him, and he of whom they are predicated
is God. A Divine Person was united to a human nature (Acts
20:28; Rom. 8:32; 1 Cor. 2:8; Heb. 2:11-14; 1 Tim.3:16;
Gal. 4:4, etc.). The union is
 hypostatical, i.e., is personal; the two natures are not
mixed or confounded, and it is perpetual.  (Easton's Bible
Dictionary)

This is complete heresy and Trinitarian.  The Bible says
that God
MANIFESTED Himself IN the sinless flesh of Jesus making Him
the "Anointed."  This is not an incarnation but a
MANIFESTATION or showing forth or display IN the medium of
flesh.  The Spirit had one nature and the flesh another. 
The Spirit is God and the flesh is not.  The nature of
Spirit IN flesh (man) was to obey the Spirit and the nature
of the flesh was to submit to the Spirit.
 
> The illustration used referring to a sail and the wind is
inaccacurate at best.

How so?

> Jesus Christ is more than merely a human house or shell
in whom the Spirit dwelt.  Was He not human in every
aspect?  Indeed, else how could he be tempted in all manner
as we are? 

This is exactly right.

 >Was He not divine in every aspect?  

Here is the error.  Jesus was not devine in every aspect. 
He got hungry, God is self sufficient.  Jesus had a
beginning, God is 
eternal.  Jesus was the son of Mary, God is the Father of
all.  I could go on but any one of these disqualifies Jesus
as God.  Jesus was God MANIFESTED IN THE FLESH.  This is
what the Bible says He was.

>Indeed, else how could He have the power to forgive sin,
etc.?  

It was the Spirit that forgave the sins and the flesh that
paid the 
price.  The Spirit could speak as God from "inside the
flesh" as well as anywhere else without changing His nature
in any way.

>To say that Jesus was a vessel that contained the Spirit
ultimately reduces Him to the same status as a born again
believer.  

Not quite.  It ELEVATES the believer to the status of
brother.

>Illustrations of the "mystery of Godliness" (e.g. the
incarnation, per 1 Tim 3.16) are insufficient because, to a
large extent, it is just that--a mystery.

When the Greek said "here is a mystery" it was the same as
if I said to you "here is a secret."  Now, after I tell you
the "secret" 
are you enlightened or left in the dark?

1 Tim 3:16 is saying "Here is the great secret of
godliness: that 
God MANIFESTED Himself IN the flesh."  This is the ANSWER
and not the "mystery."

I say this in love brother, it is very difficult to
understand the finer 
points of doctrine when you continue to use Trinitarian
sources
for reference.  I am not saying that just because a
resource is written with a Trinitarian bias that it is
useless but there is always 
an inordinate amount of "interpretation" to the "facts." 
The Easton Dictionary is a prime example of this.  I would,
if I may be so bold, suggest a Strong's Concordance with
the Hebrew
and Greek Lexicons at the end.  This gives you the meaning
of  the word when it was written WITHOUT the interpretation
which is then left up to you and God.

To make my point, look up the word "thing" in the Strong's
from the verse in Luke 2 in which Gabriel tells Mary about
"that Holy 
thing" which she has concieved.

Timothy Litteral
472 Grant St.
Marion Ohio 43302
trlitteral@usa.net
http://members.tripod.com/~trlitteral