View Full Version : 37818 Curiosities: The pre-existent Son had two natures

08-17-2015, 02:14 AM
This is a split from here ('http://www.theologyweb.com/campus/showthread.php?7785-Pentecost-on-37818-s-self-condemnation-in-an-error-of-his-view&p=228943&viewfull=1#post228943').

...the preincarnate Son always had two ousia, one which was always the same as His Father, and the other in which He actually changed when He became human in the incarnation. And that both ousia being why He as the very image of God appearing for God even when He was the preincarnate Son (John 1:18; Genesis 12:7; Hebrews 1:3; Colossians 1:15).I am curious to know where you got that idea. It appears to be another of your inventive speculations. None of the scriptures you cite offer you any support.. Would you provide a scriptural citation that specifically alludes to your assertion or even some supportive remark from any ancient father of any stripe.

Your recent post prompted me to wade through your posts in the thread "Derail from Orthodox Anathema Service on Christology" ('http://www.theologyweb.com/campus/showthread.php?6110-Derail-from-Orthodox-Anathema-Service-on-Christology&p=170061&viewfull=1#post170061'). What struck me is your peculiar word usage. I suggest you procure a good English dictionary...

...before the incarnation [] the Logos always had two natures. Prior to the incarnation the Logos was nevertheless in the form of God. His eternal nature never changed. In His temporal nature, in which He as God created heaven and earth (John 1:3). Creation is a temporal act of God. He being the only begotten became human (John 1:14) is a temporal act. When He being the LORD God walked in the garden of Eden, that was a temporal act before His incarnation. He the Logos is the Uncaused Cause. Uncaused being eternal, being a cause it being temporal. Uncaused Cause is to have two natures. Eternal is a differnet nature than being temporal. He was both. Understand? His incarnation becoming human now forever, does not change this either. Since only how his temporal nature was, it only needed to change, and that is being temporal in nature, in that, is not a change. How He was temporal changed. How He was "with God" changed. That He "was God" never changed.

According to Ephesians 3:9 (1:1-3; 3:14) & Heb 1:2 God the Father created all things through his Son, Jesus Christ. Such a fact seems to undermine your "uncaused cause" theory.

I agree with you that "creation is a temporal act of God". The dictionary definition of "temporal": relating to worldly as opposed to spiritual affairs; relating to time. Also, it is readily observable that temporal things tend to have a temporary existence (are constrained by time).

I disagree with your unbiblical idea that "the Logos always had two natures", one of which was "temporal", the other "eternal". I have two reasons for my disagreement...

1. "Temporal" and "Eternal" are states of being, not nature (physis) or essence (ousia). We learn from scripture (1 Cor 15:53) that the saved, though currently temporal beings will become eternal beings (unconstrained by time).

2. Your idea is illogical given that temporal things (including time) did not exist until they were created. The Logos existed in eternity where "time" and other temporal things are non-existent. Thus the "temporal nature" of the Logos didn't exist prior to his incarnation.

Is eternal the same nature as temporal?

"Eternal" is not a "nature" (physis), it is a mode of existence = external to time.

"Nature" (physis) is a metaphysical term which by definition requires observable "motion". It is the "motion" that differentiates the terms "nature" (physis) and "essence" (ousia).

Uncaused is eternal in nature.

To be caused or uncaused in eternity is simply a personal attribute of an eternal hypostasis, thus the relevant status is external to its "essence" (ousia) and "nature" (physis).

By definition "eternity" is devoid of time, there are no beginnings or ends in eternity. Thus whatever exists in eternity has no beginning nor end, but may have cause.

I recently read a theological observation that I liked: Being "unbegotten" implies being eternal, but being eternal does not necessarily imply being "unbegotten".

All causes are temporal.All things made by the Son are definitely temporal.

Orthodox Christians understand God the Father as the source and cause of the Son of God (cp. Heb 1:3) and the Spirit (cp. John 15:26). Both existed in eternity before temporal things came into existence (Regarding the Son, scripture is most emphatic on this point eg: John 1:1-3; Col 1:16). So your premise, from an Orthodox Christian perspective, is without substantiation. An Orthodox Christian would say God begets in eternity (external to time), but He creates temporally (within the bounds of time).

The scriptures identify that the Son of God existed before all things made were made (John 1:1-3). We also read "For by Him all things were created that are in heaven and that are on earth, visible and invisible, whether thrones or dominions or principalities or powers. All things were created through Him and for Him" (Colossians 1:16). The creation act includes the creation of earth time (cp. Genesis 1:14). The commencement of creation (the beginning of John 1:1a, Gen 1:1) is usually perceived as the beginning of universal time. Thus, we are assured by scripture that the Son was begotten in eternity (before time existed, before the ages).

Also note Ephesians 3:9 (1:1-3; 3:14) & Heb 1:2 where we learn that God the Father created all things through his Son, Jesus Christ.

That He "was God" never changed.What you don't seem to realise is that the Son's Godhead is invested in his ousia (Hence the Church's teaching on the Homoousios). The incarnation had no impact on the ousia of the Son. All that occured is that he accumulated humanity to his hypostasis.


Given 37818's argument goes in circles, I'll stop at this point...

08-17-2015, 03:08 AM
Correction to the above...

That He "was God" never changed.
What you don't seem to realise is that the Son's Godhead is perceived as being invested in his divine ousia (Hence the Church's teaching on the Homoousios). The incarnation had no impact on the divine ousia of the Son. What occured is that the Son retained his divine ousia while accumulating humanity (human ousia) to his hypostasis.

08-17-2015, 05:42 AM
John 1:1,2 without the v. 1 "was God" the Logos being "with God" is explicitly someone else other than "God." Vs. 3, 10, 14, & 18 do reveal a relationship. v.18 another nature from being invisible, which God is.

08-17-2015, 08:25 AM
John 1:1,2 without the v. 1 "was God" the Logos being "with God" is explicitly someone else other than "God." Vs. 3, 10, 14, & 18 do reveal a relationship.None of which provide any support for your imaginative speculation that the Son had two natures before his incarnation.

v.18 another nature from being invisible, which God is.(?) Read what John 1:18 actually says "No one has seen God at any time. The only begotten Son, who is in the bosom of the Father, He has declared Him". This verse also offers no support to your idle speculation.

Have a read of John 12:45 and 14:7 and you will discover that Jesus' Father has been "seen" ('http://www.blueletterbible.org/lang/lexicon/lexicon.cfm?Strongs=G3708&t=NKJV') in the Son (cp. Heb 1:3).

To be charitable, I'm guessing you meant vs14 and not vs18. At least vs14 tells us that "And the Word became flesh and dwelt among us, and we beheld His glory, the glory as of the only begotten of the Father, full of grace and truth". Oops! Maybe you wanted to avoid that verse given it refers to the monogenēs (only begotten) of the Father.