Making God and Man One

Originally posted by sonship

Am I clear?

No, you are not clear to me yet. I am not sure if you are criticizing the writing on the [b]Incarnation of Christ or the full salvation of the believers in Christ, or both.

So I will briefly respond to both possibilities.

First concerning the Incarnation of Christ as a man.


[quote] I will only reply ...[text shortened]... God which Christ came to do.[/b]

Sir, please try to understand what I'm saying.

We have the inerrant and inspired and plenary and preserved Word of God.

All I'm saying is let it speak to our hearts and minds without mixture. If you will only look at the example of what I believe is wrong with your original post, then you will see where I'm coming from, and please stop filling the page with so many words. I fall asleep just looking at it.

Originally posted by josephw
Sir, please try to understand what I'm saying.

We have the inerrant and inspired and plenary and preserved Word of God.

All I'm saying is let it speak to our hearts and minds without mixture. If you will only look at the example of what I believe is wrong with your original post, then you will see where I'm coming from, and please stop filling the page with so many words. I fall asleep just looking at it.

Sir, please try to understand what I'm saying.

I am simply going by your words. You said that it was troubling that a paragraph you read mentioned that God became one with man as well as Christ bringing God into man.

Maybe you wanted to choose your words differently. But as it stands you should not be troubled by this thought.

We have the inerrant and inspired and plenary and preserved Word of God.

A statement concerning the word of God which I affirm would be as follows -

•The Bible is the Word of God, written under His inspiration word by word (2 Tim. 3:16), and is the complete and only written divine revelation of God to man (Deut. 4:2; 12:32; Prov. 30:5-6; Rev. 22:18-19);

All I'm saying is let it speak to our hearts and minds without mixture.

I am not sure what you mean by this. Please point out what in the above paragraphs represents "mixture" in some kind of negative way.

It is often unavoidable that something of a man or woman's personality or manner of expression comes through in their discussing the Bible's truth. For example, you have a certain style which seems particular to you.

I do not dismiss the detection of your vocabulary usage as "mixture" to be avoided in and of itself. I pay attention to the meaning of the things you are attempting to communicate as best as I can.

"We should not speak with mixture" as a slogan can be too legalistic.
The church should seek to communicate the precious truths of the Bible in whatever way that is both faithful to Scripture and communicative to the age in which she testifies.

If you will only look at the example of what I believe is wrong with your original post, then you will see where I'm coming from, and please stop filling the page with so many words. I fall asleep just looking at it.

I don't care if you fall asleep. Someone reading may ascertain whether your criticism is fair while you doze off.

I do not see yet anything that is scripturally wrong with what I have either copied or written of my own accord yet, in this discussion.

Go to sleep. When you are wide awake again try again to pin point a real scriptural error in these posts I've submitted.

Originally posted by sonship

Sir, please try to understand what I'm saying.

I am simply going by your words. You said that it was troubling that a paragraph you read mentioned that God became one with man as well as Christ bringing God into man.

Maybe you wanted to choose your words differently. But as it stands you should not be troubled by this thought. ...[text shortened]... again try again to pin point a real scriptural error in these posts I've submitted.

So, what you do is obfuscate. From the atheist I expect as much. But from one who claims to be a believer I have zero tolerance.

When you are relieved of the siege mentality...

The Bible comes to a dramatic conclusion which speaks of the culmination of all God's work through the ages. He arrives at producing a corporate entity which matches Him to be His bride and wife.

As in the type Eve came out of Adam to be brought back to Adam, so the New Jerusalem comes out of Christ to be brought back to Christ to unite with Him.

As Adam said "Finally this time it is bone of my bones and flesh of my flesh" so in the end the church matches Christ and marries Christ.

The one became two. And then the two became one.
Christ is God-man and His wife becomes the corporate aggregate God-men to match Him and be His counterpart for eternity.

In Revelation is says "the Spirit and the Bride say Come!" (Rev. 22:17)

This is significant that the Holy Spirit, the Third of the Triune God speaks with the Bride the consummated church and New Jerusalem. You would expect that the Bride would be matched with the Bridegroom. But you see the Bridegroom Christ, as the Spirit has been thoroughly dispensed into the corporate body of the New Jerusalem.

Christ as the Spirit has become her life and living. So the Bridegroom, in addition to being over her as the Head is also dispensed INTO her as the "life giving Spirit" (1 Cor. 15:45) which He became. He became the life giving Holy Spirit to impart Himself into the redeemed to bring about the mingling of God and man.

So the Spirit and the Bride speak together for through the Spirit Christ and His redeemed have become one united and mutually incorporated city.

Praise God for His marvelous salvation.

Originally posted by josephw
So, what you do is obfuscate. From the atheist I expect as much. But from one who claims to be a believer I have zero tolerance.

When you are relieved of the siege mentality...

Exactly WHAT was obfuscated ?

That God becomes one with man ? Is that obfuscated ?
That Christ brought God into man ? Is that obfuscated ?
That the incarnation of Christ made the Word who was with God and was God become flesh ? Was that obfuscated ?

That whoever is joined to the Lord is made one spirit with the Lord ? Was that obfuscated ?

That we the saved are to be made like Him ? Obfuscated ? I just quoted the Apostle John.

So far exactly what your objection is is kind of obscure to me.
If that is "siege mentality" so be it.

If something is not clear, you can always request that some more clarification be supplied.

A basic belief of the Christian church can be expressed as follows. This is not exhaustive. It is only representative of one of the major Christian beliefs.

Through Christ’s work in His incarnation not only was God brought into man, but God was also made one with man. Christ has accomplished the great work of making God one with man, of making the two—God and man—one person with two natures, divinity and humanity. How this was accomplished we cannot explain. Nevertheless, the Bible reveals clearly that through Christ’s incarnation God in His divinity was made one with man in humanity.

Nor do I say that this is the only manner in which this great truth could be expressed in human language. Joseph is welcomed to use words which he finds better. Some of us will look carefully and hope we see the same basic truth being communicated.

What a tremendous conclusion there is the Bible.
What a splendid climax of all God's salvation work at the end of the age !

The Holy City New Jerusalem

by Watchman Nee

http://www.affcrit.com/pdfs/2000/02/00_02_a6.pdf

Originally posted by sonship
A basic belief of the Christian church can be expressed as follows. This is not exhaustive. It is only representative of one of the major Christian beliefs.

[quote] Through Christ’s work in His incarnation not only was God brought into man, but God was also made one with man. Christ has accomplished the great work of making God one with man, of making th ...[text shortened]... better. Some of us will look carefully and hope we see the same basic truth being communicated.

"Joseph is welcomed to use words which he finds better."

Gal. 2:20
I am crucified with Christ: nevertheless I live; yet not I, but Christ liveth in me: and the life which I now live in the flesh I live by the faith of the Son of God, who loved me, and gave himself for me.

Rom. 3:3-8
Know ye not, that so many of us as were baptized into Jesus Christ were baptized into his death?
Therefore we are buried with him by baptism into death: that like as Christ was raised up from the dead by the glory of the Father, even so we also should walk in newness of life.
For if we have been planted together in the likeness of his death, we shall be also [in the likeness] of [his] resurrection:
Knowing this, that our old man is crucified with [him], that the body of sin might be destroyed, that henceforth we should not serve sin.
For he that is dead is freed from sin.
Now if we be dead with Christ, we believe that we shall also live with him:

Col. 3:3,4
For ye are dead, and your life is hid with Christ in God.
When Christ, [who is] our life, shall appear, then shall ye also appear with him in glory.

Originally posted by josephw
[b]"Joseph is welcomed to use words which he finds better."

Gal. 2:20
I am crucified with Christ: nevertheless I live; yet not I, but Christ liveth in me: and the life which I now live in the flesh I live by the faith of the Son of God, who loved me, and gave himself for me.

Rom. 3:3-8
Know ye not, that so many of us as were baptized into Jesus C ...[text shortened]... d.
When Christ, [who is] our life, shall appear, then shall ye also appear with him in glory.[/b]

Gal. 2:20
I am crucified with Christ: nevertheless I live; yet not I, but Christ liveth in me: and the life which I now live in the flesh I live by the faith of the Son of God, who loved me, and gave himself for me.

Is a Christian forbidden to expound on this verse ?
If someone asks "How could I have been crucified with Christ?" what do you only allow yourself to re-quote the passage ?

I do not count expounding on any New Testament passage as illegitimate even though we can never improve on the pure utterance of the Scripture.

If that is the case then you shouldn't be doing anything on this Forum except merely re-quoting the Bible.

Shall we count any words of your own as "mixture" to be strictly illiminated ?

Rom. 3:3-8
Know ye not, that so many of us as were baptized into Jesus Christ were baptized into his death?
Therefore we are buried with him by baptism into death: that like as Christ was raised up from the dead by the glory of the Father, even so we also should walk in newness of life.

Amen. If someone asked you to describe how this truth has been real in your life would you merely quote the passage again ? Would you refuse to testify how this has been experienced by you because you don't want to create any "mixture" ?

What is wrong with including with our quotation of the inspired utterance of the Scripture explanation, expoundings, and teaching ?

Maybe instead of a siege mentality you had a rampart and battering ram mentality. You may expound but others should not because they add "mixture".

That is hardly right. That is a attitude of "I and only I can explain the New Testament oracles. "

Like you explained something here and didn't simply quote the verses -

You fail to see the obviousness of creation. That is why you stumble at faith. But you don't really fail to see creation. What you fail at is being real. That's what's eating at your insides. You kick and scream like a baby that can't have its way. You think you are entitled to more light than the rest of us.

And here again:

God the creator exists. The evidence for which is in the very fabric of your being. The evidence for which is in all that exists. The evidence of which you deny even in the face of God.

And here again, explaining yet not simply quoting verses:

Apparently you only choose the parts of the story that suits your personal perspective. Have you ever considered the possibility that God has done righteously and you and the rest of us have done evil, and deserve to be punished for our own sin?

And here again:

When one trusts in what Jesus did on the cross to forgive them of their sins, that one is saved and receives the free gift of eternal life. No saved person goes to heaven with sin on their account.

If you are allowed the right to explain why do you complain that others explain, providing supporting scriptures ?

Originally posted by sonship

Gal. 2:20
I am crucified with Christ: nevertheless I live; yet not I, but Christ liveth in me: and the life which I now live in the flesh I live by the faith of the Son of God, who loved me, and gave himself for me.

Is a Christian forbidden to expound on this verse ?
If someone asks "How could I have been crucified with Christ?" lain why do you complain that others explain, providing supporting scriptures ?

"Is a Christian forbidden to expound on this verse?"

No, not forbidden.

My apologies. I seem to have fallen victim to a bad case of siege mentality. 🙄

I reread through this thread to see where things went astray. In my opinion far too much is said about so little that in the end nothing is effectively communicated. In fact, due to the volume of words, concepts, idea, principles of truth, and doctrine are all thrown into question when we attempt to harmonize what we think the scripture is teaching and what it actually says.

It's not that everything you said was wrong, but bits and pieces of what you said that didn't exactly dovetail with what I think or believe is meant by what God's Word says.

Having said that, I will now attempt to cite another example of what you said the scripture teaches and what I think is wrong with it.

"The Bible comes to a dramatic conclusion which speaks of the culmination of all God's work through the ages. He arrives at producing a corporate entity which matches Him to be His bride and wife.

As in the type Eve came out of Adam to be brought back to Adam, so the New Jerusalem comes out of Christ to be brought back to Christ to unite with Him.

As Adam said "Finally this time it is bone of my bones and flesh of my flesh" so in the end the church matches Christ and marries Christ.

The one became two. And then the two became one.
Christ is God-man and His wife becomes the corporate aggregate God-men to match Him and be His counterpart for eternity."

This idea that "The Church, The Body of Christ", is to be "The Bride of Christ", is a false teaching. I would be more than happy to hear what proof texts you will provide to support that idea.

What you stated above sounds wonderful, but it simply isn't true.

I have an open mind contrary to the popular belief around here sonship. Just prove what you said with the Word of God and I'll change my mind.

I ask only one thing. Keep it simple. Short. And to the point please.

Originally posted by josephw
[b]"Is a Christian forbidden to expound on this verse?"

Thank you for thinking to apologize. Misunderstandings out of the way, let's fellowship then. I'll try not to be overly defensive too.

This idea that "The Church, The Body of Christ", is to be "The Bride of Christ", is a false teaching. I would be more than happy to hear what proof texts you will provide to support that idea.

What you stated above sounds wonderful, but it simply isn't true.

I have an open mind contrary to the popular belief around here sonship. Just prove what you said with the Word of God and I'll change my mind.

I have a less ambitious goal than to change your mind. I will simply give reason for the hope that is within me.

I ask only one thing. Keep it simple. Short. And to the point please.

I will do that. But I suspect that when I do you will say "But you did not consider this and that." Then I will have to write more to address what you may think I have overlooked or not considered.

First - John 3:29 - "He who has the bride is the bridegroom; but the friend of the bridegroom, who stands and hears him, rejoices with joy because of the bridegroom's voice. This joy of mine therefore is made full.

He [Jesus] must increase, but I must decrease."

The Bridegroom is Jesus Christ.
The friend of the Bridegroom is John the Baptist.

The Bride is those added to Christ, increasing Christ. IE. Those people who collectively go to be followers of Jesus Christ as opposed to being followers of John the Baptist -

John most DECREASE but Christ must INCREASE. The INCREASE added to Christ is the Bride of the Bridegroom.

Another passage would be all of Ephesians 5:23 - 33.

Now I was CONCISE as your requested. Now you are going to probably object. I can imagine what some objections are which you will raise.

I do think some of the objections I anticipate you raising are not trivial and SHOULD be addressed. But I'll just wait to see what objections you raise.

I try to keep it short for you.

Originally posted by sonship
Thank you for thinking to apologize. Misunderstandings out of the way, let's fellowship then. I'll try not to be overly defensive too.


[quote] This idea that "The Church, The Body of Christ", is to be "The Bride of Christ", is a false teaching. I would be more than happy to hear what proof texts you will provide to support that idea.

What you ...[text shortened]... ll just wait to see what objections you raise.

I try to keep it short for you.

(3.) John professes the great satisfaction he had in the advancement of Christ and his interest. He was so far from regretting it, as his disciples did, that he rejoiced in it. This he expresses (v. 29) by an elegant similitude. [1.] He compares our Saviour to the bridegroom: "He that hath the bride is the bridegroom. Do all men come to him? It is well, whither else should they go? Has he got the throne in men’s affections? Who else should have it? It is his right; to whom should the bride be brought but to the bridegroom?’’ Christ was prophesied of in the Old Testament as a bridegroom, Ps. 45. The Word was made flesh, that the disparity of nature might not be a bar to the match. Provision is made for the purifying of the church, that the defilement of sin might be no bar. Christ espouses his church to himself; he has the bride, for he has her love, he has her promise; the church is subject to Christ. As far as particular souls are devoted to him in faith and love, so far the bridegroom has the bride. [2.] He compares himself to the friend of the bridegroom, who attends upon him, to do him honour and service, assists him in prosecuting the match, speaks a good word for him, uses his interest on his behalf, rejoices when the match goes on, and most of all when the point is gained, and he has the bride. All that John had done in preaching and baptizing was to introduce him; and, now that he was come, he had what he wished for: The friend of the bridegroom stands, and hears him; stands expecting him, and waiting for him; rejoices with joy because of the bridegroom’s voice, because he is come to the marriage after he had been long expected. Note, First, Faithful ministers are friends of the bridegroom, to recommend him to the affections and choice of the children of men; to bring letters and messages from him, for he courts by proxy; and herein they must be faithful to him. Secondly, The friends of the bridegroom must stand, and hear the bridegroom’s voice; must receive instructions from him, and attend his orders; must desire to have proofs of Christ speaking in them, and with them (2 Co. 13:3); that is the bridegroom’s voice. Thirdly, The espousing of souls to Jesus Christ, in faith and love, is the fulfilling of the joy of every good minister. If the day of Christ’s espousals be the day of the gladness of his heart (Cant. 3:11), it cannot but be of their too who love him and wish well to his honour and kingdom. Surely they have no greater joy.

The above is an excerpt from a commentary by Mathew Henry. It is commonly taught and understood that "The Church" is the bride of Christ.

You cited John 3:29 as proof text for that teaching. The problem is it simply doesn't say that.

There is a "Bride of Christ", but it isn't "The Body of Christ" that you and I are members of today.

I must refer you to this passage to begin.

Rev. 22:9-14
And there came unto me one of the seven angels which had the seven vials full of the seven last plagues, and talked with me, saying, Come hither, I will shew thee the bride, the Lamb's wife.
And he carried me away in the spirit to a great and high mountain, and shewed me that great city, the holy Jerusalem, descending out of heaven from God,
Having the glory of God: and her light [was] like unto a stone most precious, even like a jasper stone, clear as crystal;
And had a wall great and high, [and] had twelve gates, and at the gates twelve angels, and names written thereon, which are [the names] of the twelve tribes of the children of Israel:
On the east three gates; on the north three gates; on the south three gates; and on the west three gates.
And the wall of the city had twelve foundations, and in them the names of the twelve apostles of the Lamb.

The "Body of Christ" is just that. The "bride of Christ" is another entity altogether, contrary to the popular teaching.

Originally posted by josephw
(3.) John professes the great satisfaction he had in the advancement of Christ and his interest. He was so far from regretting it, as his disciples did, that he rejoiced in it. This he expresses (v. 29) by an elegant similitude. [1.] He compares our Saviour to the bridegroom: "He that hath the bride is the bridegroom. Do all men come to him? It is well, whit ...[text shortened]... ide of Christ" is another entity altogether, contrary to the popular teaching.[/b]

This is correct. The Bride of Christ is the New Jerusalem and the Body are the saints or followers of Christ.

Even in one of Jaywill/Sonship's quotes of Ephesians 5. it says it rather clearly that Eph 5:30 For we are members of his body ...

You cited John 3:29 as proof text for that teaching. The problem is it simply doesn't say that.

John chapter 3, as you know, is about those who are born again (3:16). Surely those who receive eternal life through the new birth comprise those added to Christ as His increase. They are therefore the Bride of Christ in every potentiality.

I don't know how. you could possibly say the bride of those following Jesus could not include everyone who is born of the Spirit is principle.

There is a "Bride of Christ", but it isn't "The Body of Christ" that you and I are members of today.

The Bride of Christ HAS to be the Body of Christ. For the Bride must have the divine life of the Husband Christ who regenerates everyone who is born anew. Without having the divine life of Christ we cannot be either of His Body or of His Bride and Wife.

No one NOT possessing the life which is Christ imparted can be a member of either His mystical Body or His Bride and Wife. Having Christ as life is the first qualification to be a member of His Body and a constituent of His Bride and Wife.

The two allegories emphasize two somewhat different angles of the believer's relationship with Christ.

Body of Christ - focuses on a corporate entity with His life enabling Him to move and act upon the earth.

Wife of Christ - focuses on a corporate entity for Christ's satisfaction in love.

Bride of Christ - focuses on the Wife for "one day" so to speak. A wife is a bride for the initial time. IE. on the wedding "day" the long term wife is the bride.

That both the Body and the Bride have to refer to the same corporate entity is proved in Ephesians -

1.) The church is the body - "Now you [the church in Corinth] are the Body of Christ, and members individually. And God has placed some in the church, first apostles, second prophets, ... etc. etc." (1 Cor. 12:27,28)

This proves that the Body of Christ is also the church of Christ.

2.) The church is the wife of Christ as well as His Body - "For a husband is head of the wife as also Christ is Head of the church, He Himself being the Savior of the Body .... Husbands love your wives even as Christ also loved the church and gave Himself up for her " (Eph. 5:23-25)

The church is Christ's Body of which He is the Head and the Savior as well as Christ's wife.

Of course the Bride is the Wife for a shorter period of time initially. IE. a wedding day or what we might consider an initial "honeymoon" period of just coming together.

There should be no argument that Wife and Bride are virtually interchangeable. And there should be no argument that in Ephesians 5 the church of Christ is both Body to Christ and Spouse to Christ.

"In the same way the husbands also ought to love their own wives as their own bodies; he who loves his own wife lives himself, For no one ever hated his own flesh, but nourishes and cherishes it, EVEN AS CHRIST ALSO THE CHURCH, Because we are members of His Body." (vs. 28-30 my emphasis)

I must refer you to this passage to begin.

Rev. 22:9-14
And there came unto me one of the seven angels which had the seven vials full of the seven last plagues, and talked with me, saying, Come hither, I will shew thee the bride, the Lamb's wife.
And he carried me away in the spirit to a great and high mountain, and shewed me that great city, the holy Jerusalem, descending out of heaven from God,
Having the glory of God: and her light [was] like unto a stone most precious, even like a jasper stone, clear as crystal;
And had a wall great and high, [and] had twelve gates, and at the gates twelve angels, and names written thereon, which are [the names] of the twelve tribes of the children of Israel:
On the east three gates; on the north three gates; on the south three gates; and on the west three gates.
And the wall of the city had twelve foundations, and in them the names of the twelve apostles of the Lamb.

The "Body of Christ" is just that. The "bride of Christ" is another entity altogether, contrary to the popular teaching.

Ephesians 5 should be plenty enough to prove that the church is both the Body of Christ and the Wife of Christ. I really don't think other proofs are needed.

Now the church, at the end of the millennial kingdom, is enlarged to include ALL the old testament saints of Israel as well. All of God's redeemed people from both the Old Testament dispensation and New Testament dispensation, end up in ONE corporate "city" which is Christ's Bride and Wife in Revelation 21 and 22.

This IS the church. But it is the church enlarged. It is the church increased to include not only New Testament saints but Old Testament saints as well.

So upon walls the names of the twelve apostles of the Lamb to signify the New Testament saints. And upon the gates the names of the twelve tribes of Israel to represent the Old Testament saints.

In eternity future they are all united to be New Jerusalem. And you should not think of the New Jerusalem as being anything other than the increase and enlargement and expansion of the new covenant church.

For length's sake, additional things which need to be also mentioned, will have to wait.

Joseph, if you have carefully digested the above post, I could go on to deal with problems in the concept.

The Wife, in Revelation 19, is said to have made HERSELF ready.

Here then is a problem: That all Christians constitute the Wife and Bride of Christ in principle does not necessarily mean that all do at the same time.

It should be noted that for the Wife to make herself ready implies that some believers will be ready and some believers will not be ready.

If all are not ready at the same time, they may join the reality of the Wife at such time as they have become ready.

So, all arriving at the Bride and Wife does not mean that all arrive necessarily at the same time. But eventually ALL will arrive. That is at mature readiness to marry Christ.