The Highway Forums General Discussion Theology Discussion Forum Hypostatic Union Question

I heard someone say the following concerning the hypostatic union.


Is this a logical conclusion?

As I think about this statement (if I understand what he is getting at). It appears that he is denying the fact that Christ had a mind just like any human being, Hebrews 5:8 indicates that Jesus learned obedience through suffering. It would seem that if this person was correct, it would mean that his "divine mind", could learn something from suffering.

Am I understanding the matter properly?

Tom

The premise is 100% false. The Messiah, the incarnate Son of God took upon Himself humanity, i.e., He was 100% human and 100% Divine. The premise given contradicts the biblical teaching and that which the church has officially held since 451 A.D. It conflicts the two natures which amounts to a human divinity (god) or a divine human, both which are damnable heresy.

Pilgrim

Thank you for answering me so quick.
Would you then agree with what I said earlier?


I ask that, because on a subject such as this one, I want to be sure I understand it.

Tom

Yes, basically I find your statement is acceptable. Do YOU understand what you wrote and the implications of what this person allegedly believes concerning the person of the LORD Christ? For example, IF this person truly believes that the incarnate Son of God only had a "divine mind" and not a human mind, i.e., the actual mind of God; speaking anthropomorphically for God does not have a physical brain like those of all that God created, then if there is but one microscopic bit of knowledge which the Christ had to LEARN, that would incontrovertibly mean that He was not and COULD NOT be God because the one true God is Omniscient; He knows ALL THINGS for He decreed ALL THINGS.

Yes Pilgrim I think I understanding the issue.

Apparently, this is called apollinarianism and the person I was referring to is William Lain Craig, who claims to be “neo-apollinarian”.
I heard that WLC is a Molinist, but I did not know about that.
I am just wondering why WLC is held in such high esteem?

I thought I would check this out a little more, mainly because the information was second hand.
https://www.reasonablefaith.org/med...-dr.-craig-have-an-orthodox-christology/


Tom

1. WLC is well-known by some and his "Middle Knowledge" and "Molinarianism" has been discussed on this board several times.

2. Like most all heretics, he muddies the water, confesses orthodoxy, demands tolerance and latitude of differing views, and redefines terms which is not openly revealed to others, thus being guilty of deceit among other things.

My estimation of the man is that he is guilty of damnable heresy and has no part of the true people of God. Just consider what he wrote in the link you provided:

A. He does NOT agree with the Council of Chalcedon. Just read his second statement which is a perfect example of what I write above re: the modus operandi of heretics.

B. In the incarnation there was the joining of two distinct and separate natures; one being the second person of the Trinity; the Son, and Jesus of Nazareth who was a complete human; body and soul. The Son of God was NOT the soul of the human Jesus. This is a flat contradiction of Scripture and the teaching of the Chalcedon Creed.

Avoid philosophers at all costs. They have no use for absolute truth, but only relativity found in their own musings. Scripture is the sole and final authority in all matters of faith and practice.

Lastly, those who hold WLC in high esteem are likewise to be avoided at all cost.

Pilgrim


That reminds me of a discussion a friend and I had today about WLC. He told me that WLC is "more committed to being philosophical than theological."

I told my friend that the way I see it, you must be grounded in theology to do philosophy. He said: "WLC, has explicitly said the exact opposite."

All that to say I agree with you.

Tom