JESUS CHRIST: TWO NATURES, ONE PERSON? (The Fallacy of the Doctrine of Hypostatic Union) by Bro. Joe Ventilacion

A certain Gabriel Darwin Lopez who claims to be an online Catholic Faith Defender and has interest in discussing about religions and church doctrines had answered the article that I had posted on my Facebook account: THE TRINITY AND THE INCARNATION: TRUTH OR FALLACY? He claims that his personal goal is to be able to share his knowledge about the Catholic Church to Catholics and non-Catholics especially those who misunderstood the Catholicism. Written below is a part of his answer:
Joe is really good in labelling the doctrines of the Catholic Church with fancy descriptions. Joe has huge guts in saying that there are no biblical verses that prove the Catholic Doctrines defined in the Church Councils instead of bringing up how Catholic Church explained their doctrine and refute it. Is it really unbiblical or Joe just refused to bring up verses that prove the hypostatic union for his deception? The Hypostatic Union is the mystery of the union of the divine nature of Christ with His human nature. Christ has two minds and two wills, united in the Divine Word.
In response to his criticism, I am posting an article that will expose the fallacy of the so-called doctrine of the Hypostatic Union. This doctrine is a humanly devised hypothesis, and a defective hypothesis cannot be saved by dubbing it as a divine mystery.
INTRODUCTION
The belief that Jesus Christ is God-Incarnate, although unbiblical, gains a large following even today. Proponents of this concept subscribe to a doctrine technically called the Hypostatic Union, meaning that there are two natures – both human and divine, subsisting in one person, the Lord Jesus Christ. For those who accept this formula, Jesus of Nazareth is one and the same person as God the Son, the Second Person of the Trinity. This concept was defined by the Council of Chalcedon in 451 A.D. The creed reads:
Following, then, the holy Fathers, we all with one voice teach that it should be confessed that our Lord Jesus Christ is one and the same Son, the Same perfect in Godhead, the Same perfect in manhood, truly God and truly man, the Same [consisting] of a rational soul and body; homoousios with the Father as to his Godhead, and the Same homoousios with us as to his manhood; in all things like unto us, sin only excepted; begotten of the Father before ages as to His Godhead, and in the last days, the Same, for us and for our salvation, of Mary the Virgin Theotokos as to his manhood; One and the same Christ, Son, Lord, Only begotten, made known in two natures [which exist] without confusion, without change, without division, without separation; the difference of the natures having been in no wise taken away by reason of the union, but rather the properties of each being preserved, and [both] concurring into one Person (prosopon) and one hypostasis – not parted or divided into two persons (prosopa), but one and the same Son and Only-begotten, the divine Logos, the Lord Jesus Christ; even as the prophets from of old [have spoken] concerning him, and as the Lord Jesus Christ himself has taught us, and as the Symbol of the Fathers has delivered to us (Grillmeier 1975:544).

WHY THE CREED WAS FORMULATED
Hick reported that the growing and developing church had to explain its beliefs to the Greek-speaking culture of the Mediterranean world, and at the same time to itself, in acceptable philosophical terms; and after Constantine’s conversion to Christianity the peace of the empire required a unitary body of Christian belief. Accordingly in 325 Constantine convened the Council of Nicaea for the purpose of restoring concord to church and empire; and it was here that the church first officially adopted from Greek culture the non-biblical concept of ousia, declaring that Jesus, as God the Son incarnate, was homoousios toi patroi – of the same substance as the Father. The political significance of this was that the Christian emperor now had the status of God’s viceroy on earth. Thus the contemporary historian Eusebius, writing about Constantine’s victory over his rival Licinius, says that Constantine and his son, under the protection of God, the universal King, with the Son of God, Saviour of all, as their leader and ally, drew up their forces on all sides against the enemies of the Deity and won an easy victory (Hick 1993:44-45).
The Nicene formulation was expanded, using the same philosophical conceptuality, at the Council of Chalcedon in 451, affirming that Christ was homoousios with the Father as to his Godhead, and at the same time homoousios with us as to his manhood . . . made known in two natures [which exist] without confusion, without change, without division, without separation . . . And it is this Chalcedonian formulation that has ever since constituted the official Christian language about Christ (Hick 1993:45).
Questions regarding the nature of God’s incarnation in Jesus also proved troublesome. The theologians of Alexandria, Egypt, tended to emphasize the divinity of Jesus at the expense of his humanity, and their frequent opponents, those of the school of Antioch, Syria, emphasized Jesus' humanity at the expense of his divinity. On the Alexandrian side, Apollinarians argued that in the human Jesus the Logos had replaced his mind or spirit. This view amounted to a denial of the full humanity of Christ. Apollinarianism was condemned at the First Council of Constantinople in 381. From the Antiochene school emerged the 5th-century heresy of Nestorianism. Nestorians held that two separate persons were united in the incarnate Christ, and they rejected the Alexandrian title of Theotokos (God-bearer) for Mary. For Nestorius, the patriarch of Constantinople (present-day İstanbul), and his followers, Mary had been the mother of the human Jesus but not of the divine-human Son. In response to the challenge of Nestorianism, the councils of Ephesus, in 431, and Chalcedon, in 451, affirmed the title Theotokos. At Chalcedon, the incarnation was defined as being of “two natures, one person”- a formula that has remained standard Christian orthodoxy.
The Chalcedonian definition itself, however, led to further disagreement; an extremist faction within the Alexandrian school argued that the incarnate Son had but a single, divine nature (Monophysitism), and in this view, again, Jesus’ humanity was compromised. By the end of the 2nd century in Alexandria, the major city of Hellenistic Egypt, the Christian catechetical school headed by Clement of Alexandria had already acquired great fame. Origen, the founder of Greek Christian theology and biblical science, followed Clement as head of the school. In the 4th and 5th centuries, two bishops of Alexandria defended Christian orthodoxy – Athanasius, against Arianism, and Cyril, against Nestorianism.
Some Egyptian Christians, however, refused to follow the decrees of the Council of Chalcedon (451), which defined the person of Jesus Christ as being “one in two natures.” The doctrine of “two natures” appeared to them to imply the existence of two Christs, divine and human, and was therefore tainted with Nestorianism. They upheld the terminology of Cyril, who had spoken of “one incarnate nature of God the Word.” Those Egyptian Christians who rejected the Council of Chalcedon—a council accepted both in Constantinople and in Rome – faced charges of Monophysitism, the belief that Christ has only one nature rather than two. Only a few Alexandrians remained faithful to Chalcedonian orthodoxy (Microsoft® Encarta® Reference Library 2003).
THE PROBLEM OF THE HYPOSTATIC UNION
The problem with the Chalcedonian concept of Christ is in the fact that the Council in effect merely asserted that Jesus was “truly God and truly man” without attempting to say how such a paradox is possible. Merely to assert that two different natures coexisted in Jesus without confusion, without change, without division, without separation, is to utter a form of words which as yet has no specified meaning. The formula sets before us a “mystery” rather than a “clear and distinct idea.” Further, this is not a divine mystery but one that was created by human beings meeting at Chalcedon in present-day Turkey in the mid-fifth century (Hick 1993:48).
IT IS A CONCEPT THAT IS AGAINST THE BIBLE
If Christ was one individual who was truly God and truly man, then the properties and activities of either the human or the divine nature might with equal truth be attributed to him. If God truly became man, while remaining God, one might say of him that God was born of the Virgin Mary, grew as a child, became an adult, and interestingly, God died on the cross. For some, they were able to accept this impossibility that God died. A Catholic Catechism reports:
“Because Jesus is one Person who lives in two distinct natures, one can truthfully say of the Son of God whatever is true of Him in either of His natures. He suffered and died in His human nature, and He is God, and so we may say that God suffered and died. This is literally true . . .” (Lawler 1976:100).
Catholic and Protestant apologists would go to the distance in trying to defend a false doctrine by accepting without any hesitation that the God of the universe died! This position greatly contradicts or truly violates one of the innate attributes of God which is immortality. The Bible says in 1 Timothy 1:17:
Now to the king of ages, immortal, invisible, the only God, be honour and glory for ever and ever. Amen. (Douay-Rheims 1899 American Edition)
THE DIVINE ATTRIBUTES OF GOD
The Bible clearly defines the attributes of God. He is immutable or unchanging (Malachi 3:6). The doctrine of Incarnation which means that God took a human form: that is, from being a pure spirit, he became flesh and blood; violates the doctrine of God’s immutability. The biblical proof that even when Christ was here on earth, God did not change his form and his true nature is clear from the teaching of Christ that God is a spirit (John 4:24), a being without flesh and bones (Luke 24:39). Apostle Paul clarified that the eternal God is invisible (1 Timothy 1:17). If it is true that Christ took a human form, the change from being a spirit to a human being entailed an enormous change and clearly demonstrates that the so-called Incarnation of God is going against the biblical teaching concerning the true nature of God.
Secondly, the Bible teaches that the true God is omniscient or all-knowing (1st John 3:20). If Christ was a God-Man on earth, there should not be any limit to his knowledge since supporters of this doctrine contend that Jesus remained God even though he became a man. If the concept is true, proponents would have to accept that Jesus had two minds, one human and one divine. A perplexing question which becomes a big dilemma for them would be to explain which mind was in control during Christ’s earthly life. Was the human mind conscious that Jesus was God the Son incarnate? Where is the dividing line between the divine mind and human mind? And what does it mean to be divine? Part of the biblical answer is that being divine consists in being the eternal, omnipotent, omniscient, omnipresent and self-existent creator of everything that exists. Was the divine mind in full operation or it took a back seat while the human mind was operating?
If the answer would be “both minds were operating simultaneously” then why would Jesus, as God the Son, being omniscient, deny any knowledge of his second coming? (Matthew 24:36 NIV). It would appear then that an all-knowing God lied in front of his disciples while doing a lecture on his second coming. That would make him a pretender and a pathological liar of the highest caliber!
The Bible emphasizes that God is omnipresent or ubiquitous (Psalm 139:8-10). This poses a problem to those who support the idea that Jesus, as a God on earth, exists in heaven as the Second Person of the Trinity due to his being an omnipresent God. How could one reconcile this idea with the biblical teaching that Christ has to ascend to heaven and be seated at the right hand of God if he was there previously? The idea of ascension suggests that he was not there yet prior to his ascension. Another intriguing situation that remains unsolved is the idea that if Jesus had a preexistence before his incarnation and dwelt on earth as both human and divine, how can the one undivided self be at once unlimited (in heaven) and limited (on earth)?
When proponents of the Chalcedonian creed are shown of biblical records that manifest the apparent contradictions of a being who is God and yet lacks the attributes of God, all that they can do is to offer analogies which fail to reach the key issue, and then appeal to mystery. As one Catholic author states:
“The Incarnation, for example, is not understood by any mortal intelligence. The Incarnation means that God became man. How this was accomplished we do not know . . . we believe it . . . not because we understand this mystery . . .” (Scott 1927:10).
Thus even if one were to grant the possibility of God becoming incarnate as a physically human being who is (always or sometimes) conscious of being divine, and thus eternal, omnipotent and omniscient, still this would not be the Jesus of the Bible. If Jesus was a God-Man on earth, how would one reconcile the statements of Christ recorded in the Scriptures that prove his glaring differences with the Father? He emphatically taught that “the Father is greater than I!” (John 14:28). Was he an inferior God compared to the Father when he was here on earth? What becomes of the Catholic doctrine that the Father and the Son are equal if one is greater than the other?
How would one reconcile the divinity of Christ with his prayer in which he didactically emphasize to his disciples that they should recognize his Father in heaven as the only true God (John 17:1-3)? Would a God on earth be praying to another God other than himself? If that was the case, one God would be here on earth and another God was in heaven – the One whom the God-Man was praying to. The truth is, Jesus prayed to God and was conscious that he was doing the will of the Father (Matthew 26:39).
If it is true that God became a man and he retained his divine nature while he was on earth, then why is there a need for him to be “anointed by God with the Holy Spirit and power?” Why would the Scriptures say that “God was with him” if it is true that he was a God on earth? (Acts 10:38).
The Bible does not mention of a divine nature within Christ which comprises the other half of his person. Instead, it emphatically asserts that “God was in Christ” (2nd Corinthians 5:19). Jesus Himself said so on numerous occasions (John 10:38; 14:10-11; 17:21). Apostle Peter echoed the same point when said that “how God anointed Jesus of Nazareth with the Holy Spirit and with power, who went about doing good and healing all who were oppressed by the devil, for God was with Him” (Acts 10:38). God, who is a separate entity from Christ, is with him by means of the Holy Spirit.
This fact was also clarified by Peter in his sermon during the day of Pentecost, in which he stressed that “Listen to these words, fellow Israelites! Jesus of Nazareth was a man whose divine authority was clearly proven to you by all the miracles and wonders which God performed through him” (Acts 2:22 TEV). Again, it is not the divine nature of Christ that performed the miracles but God himself, an omnipotent being who is distinct from Christ. It was Him who proved the divine authority of Jesus by the miracles that He performed through him.
If the assertion that the Son is one substance with the Father as regards his Godhead, then Christ would not have said, “the Father did not leave me alone” (John 8:29). His statement affirms the biblical fact that He and the Father are not of one substance (cf. Luke 24:39). This was reinforced by His admittance that “the Father is greater than I” (John 14:28). Would an intelligent mind accept the concept of hypostatic union and disregards these unequivocal statements of Jesus concerning the true God?
Thus, Chalcedonian Christology is a humanly devised hypothesis, and a defective hypothesis cannot be saved by dubbing it as a divine mystery.
Unless otherwise noted, all Scripture references were taken from the New King James Version.
REFERENCES
Grillmeier Aloys, S.J., Christ in Christian Tradition, Volume 1, Second Revised Edition, translated by John Bowden, John Knox Press, Atlanta (1975)
Hick, John, The Metaphor of God Incarnate, Christology in a Pluralistic Age, Westminster/John Knox Press, Louisville, Kentucky (1993)
Lawler, Ronald, ed., The Teaching of Christ: A Catholic Catechism for Adults, Our Sunday Visitor, Inc., Huntington, Indiana (1976)
Microsoft® Encarta® Reference Library 2003. © 1993-2002 Microsoft Corporation. All rights reserved.
Scott, Martin J., S.J., Things Catholics Are Asked About, P.J. Kennedy & Sons, New York (1927)

IS JOINING THE IGLESIA NI CRISTO A BAD IDEA? by Bro. Joe Ventilacion

Mr. Isahel N. Alfonso, a Roman Catholic apologist and blogger, a member of the Catholic Faith Defenders (CFD) in the Archdiocese of Davao wrote an article which he called WHY JOINING THE IGLESIA NI CRISTO IS A BAD IDEA. Although his arguments are just a rehash of what has been used by CFDs before him against the Iglesia Ni Cristo, I decided to answer his allegations so that he could not deceive our Catholic and Protestant friends who are in the process of joining the Church. As I look at his arguments, some were simply copied and pasted from other Catholic websites.
First, let us take a look at his arguments then let us provide the answers so he and his co-defenders may be enlightened and hopefully, will join the chorus of Catholics who are in exodus and now are finding their way into the Iglesia Ni Cristo.
ARGUMENT NUMBER ONE
1. The Iglesia Ni Cristo (INC) was founded by Felix Manalo, not by Jesus Christ.
The Iglesia Ni Cristo apologists rely on a single Bible text to prove that INC is the true Church of Jesus Christ. According to them since the name of their Church is "Church of Christ", and in Romans 16:16 we can read "Churches of Christ" therefore, theirs is the true Church of Jesus Christ since the name of their Church can literally be found in the Bible. This argument cannot hold water for two reasons,
1. If the name of the Church is the basis of its authenticity then the INC have to accept that other Protestant denominations that got its name from the pages of Scripture must also be a true Church of Jesus Christ. 2. The authenticity (or being the true Church) relies not on its name but whether it is personally of historically founded by Jesus Christ.
ANSWERS TO ARGUMENT NUMBER ONE:
It seems that Mr. Alfonso is outdated when it comes to the issue of the verses that are being used by the Iglesia Ni Cristo to prove that the name of the Church built by Christ is the Church of Christ. He said that we are just using a single text to prove that the true Church is called by the name Church of Christ. He cited Romans 16:16 then concluded by saying that “if the name of the Church is the basis of its authenticity then the INC have to accept that other Protestant denominations that got its name from the pages of Scripture must also be a true Church of Jesus Christ.”
First, it is not true that only Romans 16:16 mention the name Church of Christ in the Bible.Below are some translations into English and Spanish that contain the name Church of Christ, proving that Mr. Alfonso's arguments really cannot hold water. His argument is flawed and inconsistent.
Before we go to the different translations of the Bible that contain the term, I would let a Catholic author, a Jesuit priest, to educate him on the issue of the name of the Church established by Christ. Let’s analyze the points he raised:
5. Did Jesus Christ establish a Church?
“Yes, from all history, both secular and profane, as well as from the Bible considered as a human document, we learn that Jesus Christ established a Church, which from the earliest times has been called after Him the Christian Church or the Church of Christ.” (Cassily, Francis B., S.J. Religion: Doctrine and Practice for use in Catholic High Schools. 12th and revised edition. Imprimi Potest: Charles H. Cloud, S.J. Provincial of the Chicago Province. Imprimatur: George Cardinal Mundelein, Archbishop of Chicago. Chicago: Loyola University Press, 1934, pp. 442-443.).
We agree with this priest's contention that the Church established by Christ was called after him, the CHURCH OF CHRIST. We believe what he is saying, not because he is a priest, but because he said that it is from the Bible that “we learn that Jesus Christ established a Church, which from the earliest times has been called after Him the Christian Church or the Church of Christ.”
Obviously, Mr. Alfonso did not learn from his mentor and does not know that the Bible teaches that the name of the Church established by Jesus Christ is called the Church of Christ. If the Roman Catholic Church where he belongs is the true Church and not the Church of Christ, how come it is not written in the Bible? Does it mean that Mr. Alfonso’s church is not true and he is a member of a false church? You know the answer to these questions.
To show his ignorance, I am going to cite the translations of the Bible that have the term “Church of Christ” so he may learn not to jump to a hasty conclusion that only Romans 16:16 mentions the term. He probably needs to study more before he would say anything that would just make him laughable at the end. Here is one verse and the translations that proved them:
ACTS 20:28 LAMSA TRANSLATION
Take heed therefore to yourselves and to all the flock over which the Holy Spirit has appointed your overseers, to feed the church of Christ which he has purchased with his blood."
ACTS 20:28 ETHERIDGE TRANSLATION
Take heed therefore to yourselves, and to the whole flock over which the Spirit of Holiness hath constituted you the bishops; to pasture the church of the Meshiha [Christ] which he hath purchased with his blood.
ACTS 20:28 DISCIPLES NEW TESTAMENT
Therefore, take care of yourselves, and of all the congregation in which you have been appointed through the holy Spirit as bishops, to shepherd the church of Jesus Christ, that which he established by his blood.
ACTS 20:28 BIBLIA PESHITTA
Por tanto, tengan cuidado de ustedes mismos, y de todo el rebaño sobre el cual los ha puesto el Espíritu Santo como supervisores para apacentar la iglesia del Cristo, la cual Él compró con su sangre.
With the preponderance of biblical texts that show the term CHURCH OF CHRIST, they tell us that Mr. Alfonso’s arguments are unfounded.
We do not say that the name alone identifies the true Church. It’s true that there are some Protestant churches that use the name Church of Christ. However, the identity of the true Church is that it is not only named or written in the Bible but the teachings that it embraces must be in the Bible. That’s the problem with Protestant churches and especially the Catholic Church where Mr. Alfonso belongs since their doctrines and practices are against the teachings of the Bible. Please read my postings on THE TRINITY AND INCARNATION: TRUTH OR FALLACY? and you will see that the Catholic and Protestant doctrine about God and His Son Jesus Christ is flawed and directly contradicts genuine biblical teaching.
In our next article, we shall show to Mr. Alfonso why we believe that the true Church is not only named after Christ but it is personally founded by Jesus Christ. He will have the opportunity to know that the Iglesia Ni Cristo which emerged in the Philippiness in 1914 was established by Christ himself. Who knows, he might be enlightened and join the Church of Christ but first, he should sit down and listen as our ministers will teach him from the Bible the truth about the re-establishment of the true Church of Christ in the Philippines. Like the millions who joined the Iglesia Ni Cristo, he will have the confindence that he is indeed a member of the true Church of Christ.
We will continue to answer his criticisms so please watch for the next article that we will be posting in this FB account. Thank you.
To our Catholic and Protestant friends, you may want to visit www.incmedia.orgfor more information.

ELISEO SORIANO, BAKIT "PUNO SA PUNO" KAPAG IGLESIA NI CRISTO ANG DEBATE?

Sa mga nakalipas na araw, nabalitaan nating nakipagdebate si Eliseo Soriano kay Carlos Montemayor na isang MINISTRO ng programang PANTELEBISYON ng isang kristiyanong denominasyon na tinatawag na "LA LUZ DEL MUNDO" o "Light of the World". (kung saan maraming nakapansin na talo sa naganap na debate si Eli Soriano)


Malalaman nating si Carlos Montemayor ay hindi naman tagapamahala o may pinakamataas na leadersa pangkating La Luz Del Mundo. Ang kinikilala nilang pinakamataas ay si Naasón Joaquín García na siya ding kinikilala nilang apostol DAW ni Cristo.




Ang tanong natin, bakit kapag mga pipitsugin ang makakadebate ni Eli Soriano pwedeng hindi tagapamahala? Bakit kahit hindi pinakamataas na leader pwede? Bakit kapag Iglesia ni Cristo "ilabas si Manalo" ang dialogue ni Eli?

(excerpt from readme: http://iglesianicristoreadme.blogspot.com/2014/11/kailan-kaya-lalaban-ng-debate-si-eliseo.html#.VPhbxfmUdKU)

Laos na ang dialogue na MAY BANTA SA BUHAY, bakit wala ka bang Diyos, ganun ka ka-duwag mamatay. Kung pinagbabantaan ng INC ang buhay niya, matagal na dapat siyang wala sa mundong ito, dahil gano man siya kalayo pwedeng pwede naman siyang ipahanap ng INC saka gawin ang ibinibintang samin. Pero hanggang ngayon kita nyo naman, BUHAY NA BUHAY SIYA. Nagtatago sila sa style na may "nagbabanta sa buhay" ang korni.

KAILAN KAYA LALABAN NG DEBATE SI ABE ARGANIOSA AT MARWIL LLASOS SA IGLESIA NI CRISTO?

Wendell Talibong, Socrates Fernandez, Wilson Woodrow, at ang latest ay sina Alvin Gitamondoc at CFD National PRESIDENT Ramon Gitamondoc. Isama pa natin ang mga INTERNATIONAL catholic apologetics na sina Karl Keating at Jesse Romero, ilan lamang yan sa mga catholic faith defenders na naka-formal debate na ng Iglesia ni Cristo. Hindi natin matatawaran ang kanilang LAKAS ng LOOB na makipagdebate sa INC nang walang "pagdadahilan"o excuses(kahit nagkakandalito-lito sila sa mga cross examinations).

Dalawa sa matitinding manira sa INC ay sina CFD National Adviser Abe Arganiosa at DFF Marwil Llasos, kilala sa kanilang mga blogs na "splendor" at "knowthetruth", ay hindi pa natin nakikitang humarap sa mga formal debates. Bakit? Dahil sa kanilang mga blogs at websites lamang nila kayang ipagtanggol ang kanilang mga paniniwala. Kumbaga pag dating sa live action ay nasa-shock tulad ng nangyari kay Alvin Gitamondoc, sa FB magaling manira ngunit nung humarap na sa formal debate ay natulala sa screen.(matatameme ang splendor at knowthetruth kung sakali). Ang nakakabilib lang dito kay G.Alvin Gitamondoc ay sumulat siya ng formal letter sa INC Office.

Napakarami ang kanilang mapagpipiliang tema, mga temang madalas nilang i-topic sa kanilang mga blogsites, at hindi pa natin napapanood sa mga debate tulad ng tungkol sa:


1. Maria, Ina ng Dios, tagapamagitan
2. Ash Wednesday at Kwaresma
3. Dugo,pwedeng kainin

4. Celibacy
5. Infant Baptism
6. Rosary
7. Sign of the cross
8. Pagtawag ng father
9. Misa at eucharist

10. Santo at mga rebulto
11. Valentines day, All saints day
12. Pasko
(apirmatibo/negatibo)

Nakakapagtaka kung bakit walang CFD na ginagawang tema ito sa mga formal debate diba? Indefensible? Ano kayang rason ang kokopyahin ng mga ito kay eliseo soriano? Ilabas ang mga "Manalo"? Puno sa puno? May deaththreat? Mag isip naman ng iba, gasgas na yan.


(for internet use only)