The Illogicality of the Dual Nature Doctrine
March 20th, 2012 by Guest Author
A Plea for Oneness Believers to Reconsider
by Mike Hicks
We, then, following the holy Fathers, all with one consent, teach men to confess one and the same Son, our Lord Jesus Christ, the same perfect in Godhead and also perfect in manhood; truly God and truly man, of a reasonable [rational] soul and body; consubstantial [co-essential] with the Father according to the Godhead, and consubstantial with us according to the Manhood; in all things like unto us, without sin; begotten before all ages of the Father according to the Godhead, and in these latter days, for us and for our salvation, born of the Virgin Mary, the Mother of God, according to the Manhood; one and the same Christ, Son, Lord, only begotten, to be acknowledged in two natures, inconfusedly, unchangeably, indivisibly, inseparably; the distinction of natures being by no means taken away by the union, but rather the property of each nature being preserved, and concurring in one Person and one Subsistence, not parted or divided into two persons, but one and the same Son, and only begotten, God the Word, the Lord Jesus Christ; as the prophets from the beginning [have declared] concerning Him, and the Lord Jesus Christ Himself has taught us, and the Creed of the holy Fathers has handed down to us.
The doctrine of the dual nature, or technically the hypostatic union, as seen above, has been the official position of the Catholic Church since 451 A.D. With the Protestant Reformation came many changes, however the doctrines of the Trinity and the Dual Nature of Christ were, for the most part, retained. While Oneness believers correctly reject the doctrine of the Trinity, they nevertheless accept the doctrine of the Dual Nature (although most would take exception to the term “Mother of God†with reference to Mary).
Is it logical to reject the idea that God is a Trinity of persons, and yet maintain the key doctrine which supports that idea? It must be noted that the Dual Nature doctrine decided on at Chalcedon in 451 A.D. was built upon and is the necessary by-product of belief in the Trinity. Because the Council of Constantinople had already decided that Jesus was “very God of very God†in 381, it became incumbent upon them to “explain†all the clear references to His manhood. Scripture is abundantly clear that Jesus was a man, and I see no Biblical precedence where the definition of “man†changed.
Let me be clear: the question is not COULD God become a man. Rather, the question is does the Bible clearly indicate that he DID become a man? Does the Bible explicitly teach anywhere that Jesus was comprised of two natures? No, it does not. It must be inferred from the text in the same manner that the Trinity is inferred from the text by many. As a former Oneness believer I can remember deriding Trinitarians for building a doctrine out of proof texts, rather than hearing the whole, clear counsel of God, while on the other hand I was doing the exact same thing with respect to the Dual nature. I was being a hypocrite without even realizing it, holding Trinitarians to a higher standard than I was holding myself to.
The Bible teaches that Jesus was a man. In fact, we are told that “in all things it behoved him to be made like unto his brethren, that he might be a merciful and faithful high priest in things pertaining to God, to make reconciliation for the sins of the people.†– Hebrews 2:17
Are you a God-man? Do you have a dual nature? Christ had to be a real, honest to goodness man in order to reconcile us to God. The argument that Jesus “had to be God in order to save us†directly contradicts Romans 5:12-19 which teaches that, to the contrary, in order to redeem us, Messiah had to be a man.
To every Oneness believer who reads this post I challenge you to do one thing: read through every sermon in the book of Acts. As you read, ask yourself the following questions: Did any Apostle preach that God became a man? Did any Apostle teach that Jesus was a God-man? Would any of the hearers of any of the sermons in the book of Acts have come away with a Oneness understanding of God and Christ?
My friends, it is not logical to reject the Trinity, but to accept the Dual Nature of Jesus Christ. One is built upon the other, and if the foundations be destroyed, will not that which has been built upon it also fall?
Thanks for another great article Mike… 8)
Did any Apostle preach that God became a man? John1:1,14. From my understanding is God the father became flesh to do the will of the father. This was Gods plan from the beginning. As a absolute oneness believer and not a traditional oneness i dont believe in dual nature or a omnipresent spirit. God bless
Hey, Dan! Nice to see you over here! Could you elaborate on your position, please? How many individuals are involved in a father-son relationship???
Dan,
Reading not only Joh 1 but also the rest of the NT scriptures, I would answer your question as follows: “No, none of the apostles preached that God became a man!”
Also, according to Jesus, God – even at the time when Jesus met the woman at the well and was talking to her – was SPIRIT (cp Joh 4:24). From Jesus’ own words we can understand that God had not become a man, even with the man Jesus living on earth.
Cheers,
Wolfgang
Dan,
For the PROPER translation of John 1:1 see as follows:
http://www.heaven.net.nz/writings/trinitarian-trickery-John-1-1.html
The text is indicating two beings (THE God and god).
If God became a man then there’s no God at all ! GOD NEVER CHANGE TO BEING GOD NOR DID HE STOPPED HIS BEING GOD . It was not God who became man ( Jesus ) , but it was his WORD ( Logos ) John 1:14
That Word ( Jesus ) was the power and wisdom of God ! I Cor. !:24 . That is why all things were made by Him ( Jesus ) John 1:3
If Jesus is not both God and man , then he could not be the mediator between God and man ; God will not save man alone without blood nor Jesus as man alone could do better than any prophets !
Jesus as the Father is God , as the Son he is human ; as God a Spirit , as man is a flesh . As God the Father he is eternal ; as the only begotten son , temporal . As the Father he was Adonai or master ; as Son , he was a servant .
Resty,
Can you please provide scriptural support for these claims? After all, 1 Timothy 2:5 says our mediator is the man Christ Jesus, not the “God-man”…
Does this mean you are a modalist?
Resty,
I agree that the Word of God became flesh, for that is what Scripture declares. I also agree that all things were made by it (the Word): And God said, let there be…and there was… I do not believe that the Word of God was a person before Jesus Christ was born.
As to His mediatorship, it is not that He had to both God and man in order to mediate, but rather the dichotomy is between God and sinful man. It is in this way that Jesus was outside of both parties, being neither God nor a sinful man.
Romans 8:3 tells us that God sent “His own Son in the likeness of sinful flesh and as an offering for sin, He condemned sin in the flesh.” Jesus did not simply come in the likeness of flesh, as though He weren’t “really” a man, but in the likeness of “sinful flesh”, that is, to most people he appeared to be “ordinary, sinful flesh”. There was no halo floating above His head.
The Bible does not teach that “Jesus as the Father is God, as the Son he is human” as you declare. Neither does it teach that He is eternal. It does teach us that He is the unique human Son of God, who began His existence in the womb of His mother, Mary.
God bless.
Hi Mike,
Excellent post… 🙂
“Rather, the question is does the Bible clearly indicate that he DID become a man? […] No, it does not.”
Well I commend your use of polemic but usually you want to actually evidence your assertions. Instead, it appears you’re more comfortable making them rather than actually showing them to be true.
Indeed, it does show that He became man. The first chapter of John makes that abundantly clear. The above-linked attempt to refute John 1:1 is thoroughly nonsensical.
Further, when you write, “Neither does it teach that He is eternal,” you once again make an assertion with no evidence to support it. I would cite the first chapter of John again but I’d rather go to John 17:5 (could it get more obvious?), John 17:24 Philippians 2:6-8, Colossians 1:15-17, Hebrews 1:2-3 etc.
I’d love to see you actually back up your arguments, Mike.
John 1 tells us Who God WAS and thereby gives us the understanding of Who God IS. It says explicitly, “The Word WAS God”. That answers the question as to Who God WAS. We can extrapolate from that and say that God IS the Word. Now comes the question as to what the Word BECAME. It is not the question of BEING, but of BECOMING. And it is not directly the question of what GOD became but of what the WORD became. John 1 tells us that the Word BECAME flesh. It does not say that the Word WAS flesh, but that it BECAME flesh. Now we should not think through this so fast and ignore the question as to why God said things this way. He never said that God became flesh. He told us first what the Word WAS and only then what the Word BECAME. God was not providing for us a string of syllogisms from which we could derive another syllogism. No. We should let scripture speak and limit our understandings to what it directly says. And we should not nullify the difference between “was” and “became”. The first speaks of being. The second speaks of process. God’s Word was involved in a process of becoming. What does that mean? We must limit our conclusions to what scripture says of the flesh in relation to God. In what way does scipture say that God related to flesh? It says that He was MANIFEST in it, not that he became it. So if we want to understand John 1, we need to use scripture to interpret it for us. That the Word “became flesh” is to be understood in terms of I Timothy 3:16, that God was manifest in it, not that He WAS flesh. God is not a man that He should lie. Rather, God was in Christ, reconciling the world to Himself.
I enjoyed reading all the comments. I also appreciate the liberty to disagree 🙂
Philippians 2 lays it out quite plainly. I think if you do interpret Scripture with Scripture you find that if Jesus was not deity then soteriology (the doctrine of salvation) will break down. But if Jesus is not man then how could he: be tempted, feel human emotions, hunger, bleed, or die?
I believe the doctrine of the dual-nature of Christ is a concept that we believe due to the evidence of Scripture supporting both His deity and His humanity. Just because we can’t wrap our limited minds around the concept doesn’t mean it’s not accurate. Much like we can’t comprehend the vastness of God Himself, His eternal, omniscient, omnipotent, immutable, and loving nature.
To those who may believe that it is possible to “understand” these complex doctrines, have you ever tried to answer the question, “why does God love humans?” Or, “why did He create this whole universe and plan of redemption in the first place?”
Romans 11:33 (ESV) Oh, the depth of the riches and wisdom and knowledge of God! How unsearchable are his judgments and how inscrutable his ways!
-Luke
“I think if you do interpret Scripture with Scripture you find that if Jesus was not deity then soteriology (the doctrine of salvation) will break down. ”
Luke
Knowing that God at anytime could have sent a deity as a Redeemer ,what purpose did it serve for God to wait.
But to understand the Prophecies starting with Eve we know that it was a human prophesied . It was just a Man who disobeyed God so why wouldn’t a perfectly obedient man serve as the counter to the curse. Jesus for 30 years of his life was perfectly obedient to God’s Will by 100% of his human ability. After that he was indwelled by THE HOLY SPIRIT and sometimes spoke for,by that Spirit. If Scripture supports anything as a deity it would point to the Spirit that possessed Jesus bodily at His baptism.