Is this accurate?

[2Timothy1_7]

Hi,

A protestant friend of mine recently wrote this reflection on (John 1:1-2,14), (Job 22:21), and (Ephesians 5:21):

“Jesus is fully human. Although he is also fully God, he never drew upon his nature as God to do anything. He only lived out of his relationship with God, living in the very same manner that God desires to be in relationship with every human being. Jesus was just the first to do it to the uttermost, the first to believe in God’s love and goodness without regard for appearance or consequence. So, when Jesus healed the blind, raised the dead, he did so as a dependent, limited human being trusting in God’s life and power to be at work within him and through him. Jesus, as a human being, had no power within himself to heal anyone.Only as he rested in his relationship with God, and in their communion could he express God’s heart and will in any given circumstance. That’s how Jesus lived and acted as a true human - how every human is designed to live - out of God’s life and love”

This seems awfully close to denying Christ’s divinity, or asserting that a created human is capable of everything Jesus did. Is this how a Catholic would explain how the Divine Son had two natures - human and divine - and how He used them on earth?

 

[spockrates]

Hi,

A protestant friend of mine recently wrote this reflection on (John 1:1-2,14), (Job 22:21), and (Ephesians 5:21):

“Jesus is fully human. Although he is also fully God, he never drew upon his nature as God to do anything. He only lived out of his relationship with God, living in the very same manner that God desires to be in relationship with every human being. Jesus was just the first to do it to the uttermost, the first to believe in God’s love and goodness without regard for appearance or consequence. So, when Jesus healed the blind, raised the dead, he did so as a dependent, limited human being trusting in God’s life and power to be at work within him and through him. Jesus, as a human being, had no power within himself to heal anyone.Only as he rested in his relationship with God, and in their communion could he express God’s heart and will in any given circumstance. That’s how Jesus lived and acted as a true human - how every human is designed to live - out of God’s life and love”

This seems awfully close to denying Christ’s divinity, or asserting that a created human is capable of everything Jesus did. Is this how a Catholic would explain how the Divine Son had two natures - human and divine - and how He used them on earth?

Compare Elijah raising a dead child to Jesus do the same:

Then he stretched himself out on the [dead] boy three times and cried to the LORD, “O LORD my God, let this boy’s life return to him!”

The LORD heard Elijah’s cry, and the boy’s life returned to him, and he lived. Elijah picked up the child and carried him down from the room into the house. He gave him to his mother and said, “Look, your son is alive!”

(1 Kings 17:21-23)

He [Jesus] took her [the dead girl] by the hand and said to her, “Talitha koum!” (which means, “Little girl, I say to you, get up!” ). Immediately the girl stood up and walked around (she was twelve years old). At this they were completely astonished.

(Mark 5:41-42)

Elijah prayed for God to bring the dead child to life; Jesus simply told the dead child to get up.

 

[2Timothy1_7]

That’s good stuff… what about a NT example? I remember St Peter being involved in a couple healings/miracles…

 

[bogeydogg]

OK I’m a protestant and I have to say that this heresy plain and simple.

Chalcedon confessed Christ “fully man” and “fully God” that is in no sense at all did Christ divest Himself of His divine nature in order to become man. He set aside His dignity. He set aside his rights as King, but not His power or authority because to do so would mean that He became less than God. That is to say He became non-God. And God cannot ever become non-God for the same reason that God cannot sin nor lie, because to do so would do violence to His nature which is perfect in every way. How can perfection be non-perfection while still being perfect?

Your friend has been taught this by someone who misunderstands the Trinity. A lot of people will attempt to explain this very difficult doctrine by making it mean less than it does, but we cannot do so and still be faithful. Ever.

In truth I think the best writing on this doctrine are found in the catechism as well as in the writings of St Augustine. Point your friend to these and lead him away from this heterodoxy because this error stems from trying to understand something that is difficult, but still must be believed. Remember the Trinity is Fides Implicita, and no one may stray from it and remain a Christian.

Pray for your friend.

God Bless

 

[djeter]

I have a post that was adapted from Fr. Robert Barron’s *And Now I See *which one reviewer has called “the most readable, sensible and well-supported view of Christianity” he had ever read. It constantly surprises me that as I return to this book to help me advocate the Church’s positions, I always find something clear-cut and easily understandable.

The post couples Fr. Barron’s writings on Chalcedon and Robert Sokolowski’s *The God of Faith and Reason. *

The Chalcedonian Doctrine came at the end of a long period of debate and discussion in the early church concerning the nature and salvific significance of Jesus Christ. To simplify somewhat, two camps battled for supremacy over the course of two centuries: one placing greater emphasis on the humanity of the Lord and the other on his divinity.

Arius, the fourth-century heresiarch, proposed a sort of compromise according to which Jesus is somewhat divine and somewhat human. Arius’s position, to give it its due, had a certain coherency in the context of the ancient world, since it was borrowed from a mythological framework.

In the legends of the Greeks, many gods and goddesses “mixed themselves” with humans, producing all sorts of divine/human hybrids, quasi-gods and demigods. Arius proposed to his Hellenistic Christian world a similar theory of the mingling of nature and supernature.

Most of what you are considering here is rooted in Chalcedonian doctrine which is fundamental to the Church’s understanding of Jesus Christ.

You can find it all here:

payingattentiontothesky.com/2010/01/11/the-chalcedonian-doctrine/

dj

 

[inkaneer]

OK I’m a protestant and I have to say that this heresy plain and simple.

Chalcedon confessed Christ “fully man” and “fully God” that is in no sense at all did Christ divest Himself of His divine nature in order to become man. He set aside His dignity. He set aside his rights as King, but not His power or authority because to do so would mean that He became less than God. That is to say He became non-God. And God cannot ever become non-God for the same reason that God cannot sin nor lie, because to do so would do violence to His nature which is perfect in every way. How can perfection be non-perfection while still being perfect?

Your friend has been taught this by someone who misunderstands the Trinity. A lot of people will attempt to explain this very difficult doctrine by making it mean less than it does, but we cannot do so and still be faithful. Ever.

In truth I think the best writing on this doctrine are found in the catechism as well as in the writings of St Augustine. Point your friend to these and lead him away from this heterodoxy because this error stems from trying to understand something that is difficult, but still must be believed. Remember the Trinity is Fides Implicita, and no one may stray from it and remain a Christian.

Pray for your friend.

God Bless

I agree, this is heresy. The Council of Chalcedon (451), which declared that in Christ the two natures, each retaining its own properties, are united in one subsistence and one person. They are not joined in a moral or accidental union as per the heretic Nestorius, nor commingled as per the heretic Eutyches. Nevertheless they are substantially united. The natures of Jesus were joined together in the ‘Hypostsatic Union’. Hypostasis means, literally, that which lies beneath as basis or foundation. Hence it came to be used by the Greek philosophers to denote reality as distinguished from appearances. Jesus possessed both natures fully and it was not a matter of turning one on and the other off as the original poster’s friend suggests.

 

[spockrates]

That’s good stuff… what about a NT example? I remember St Peter being involved in a couple healings/miracles…

Yes, but he always used the words, “In the name of Jesus …” which appears to me to mean that he was acknowledging Christ’s ability to work the miracles through him. Does it appear the same to you, too, 2Timothy?

Then Peter said, “Silver or gold I do not have, but what I have I give you. In the name of Jesus Christ of Nazareth, walk.” Taking him by the right hand, he helped him up, and instantly the man’s feet and ankles became strong.

(Acts 3:6-7)

 

[estesbob]

Hi,

A protestant friend of mine recently wrote this reflection on (John 1:1-2,14), (Job 22:21), and (Ephesians 5:21):

“Jesus is fully human. Although he is also fully God, he never drew upon his nature as God to do anything. He only lived out of his relationship with God, living in the very same manner that God desires to be in relationship with every human being. Jesus was just the first to do it to the uttermost, the first to believe in God’s love and goodness without regard for appearance or consequence. So, when Jesus healed the blind, raised the dead, he did so as a dependent, limited human being trusting in God’s life and power to be at work within him and through him. Jesus, as a human being, had no power within himself to heal anyone.Only as he rested in his relationship with God, and in their communion could he express God’s heart and will in any given circumstance. That’s how Jesus lived and acted as a true human - how every human is designed to live - out of God’s life and love”

This seems awfully close to denying Christ’s divinity, or asserting that a created human is capable of everything Jesus did. Is this how a Catholic would explain how the Divine Son had two natures - human and divine - and how He used them on earth?

Sounds like Arianism to me.

 

[Fidelis]

Hi,

A protestant friend of mine recently wrote this reflection on (John 1:1-2,14), (Job 22:21), and (Ephesians 5:21):

“Jesus is fully human. Although he is also fully God, he never drew upon his nature as God to do anything. He only lived out of his relationship with God, living in the very same manner that God desires to be in relationship with every human being. Jesus was just the first to do it to the uttermost, the first to believe in God’s love and goodness without regard for appearance or consequence. So, when Jesus healed the blind, raised the dead, he did so as a dependent, limited human being trusting in God’s life and power to be at work within him and through him. Jesus, as a human being, had no power within himself to heal anyone.Only as he rested in his relationship with God, and in their communion could he express God’s heart and will in any given circumstance. That’s how Jesus lived and acted as a true human - how every human is designed to live - out of God’s life and love”

I read this thread earlier today, and I couldn’t figure out where anyone could get such cockamamie ideas. Then, a few minutes ago, I was reading a review on that dopey little novel “The Shack” and – viola! – I remembered your thread and recognized this carp was taken directly almost word for word from that book!

It also smacks of writings by that little fraud Eckhart Tolle who is a darling of Oprah Winfrey.

If your friend is getting his or her theology from such idiotic sources, he or she deserves to be confused. Tell him or her that they need to dump the pulp novel, daytime TV pop-theology and dig into the Scriptures and check out some **real **theologians like Augustine and Aquinas.

 

[inkaneer]

Yes, but he always used the words, “In the name of Jesus …” which appears to me to mean that he was acknowledging Christ’s ability to work the miracles through him. Does it appear the same to you, too, 2Timothy?

Then Peter said, “Silver or gold I do not have, but what I have I give you. In the name of Jesus Christ of Nazareth, walk.” Taking him by the right hand, he helped him up, and instantly the man’s feet and ankles became strong.

(Acts 3:6-7)

Remember that the words “In the name of…” actually means “by the authority of…” Just like the police officer used to say “Stop in the name of the law” He was claiming the authority of the law, not his own, in ordering a fleeing felon to stop. So too, where the scriptures say that people were baptized “in the name of Jesus” means by the authority of Jesus which is Trinitarian baptism.

 

[spockrates]

Remember that the words “In the name of…” actually means “by the authority of…” Just like the police officer used to say “Stop in the name of the law” He was claiming the authority of the law, not his own, in ordering a fleeing felon to stop. So too, where the scriptures say that people were baptized “in the name of Jesus” means by the authority of Jesus which is Trinitarian baptism.

Yes. And in the case of miracles, something done in the name of Jesus might be done not only by His authority but also by his power. Don’t you agree?

 

[inkaneer]

Yes. And in the case of miracles, something done in the name of Jesus might be done not only by His authority but also by his power. Don’t you agree?

Yes, but I don’t think you can separate the two. Authority to do something is power to do it. Both are from God.

 

[Ranp]

It also smacks of writings by that little fraud Eckhart Tolle who is a darling of Oprah Winfrey.

“New Age” is the new name of heresy.

 

[Cashue]

Hi,

A protestant friend of mine recently wrote this reflection on (John 1:1-2,14), (Job 22:21), and (Ephesians 5:21):

"Jesus is fully human. Although he is also fully God, he never drew upon his nature as God to do anything.
Is this how a Catholic would explain how the Divine Son had two natures - human and divine - and how He used them on earth?

Your protestant friend is guilty of heresy… Jesus is FULLY human and FULLY god. When he came to earth it is clear he was fully god because he said there were things he didn’t know but only the father knew.

This proves he was fully god and that he was also fully human.

 

[spockrates]

Yes, but I don’t think you can separate the two. Authority to do something is power to do it. Both are from God.

Agreed! How can someone have authority without power to act as an authority?