Two natures of Christ as revealed in Scriptures

While the divine nature doesn't have any need of "improvement" the divine nature does communicate attributes to His humanity. Hence He healed with human touch yet the power to heal was divine. He walked on water with human feet, but the power to do so on water was divine. His human blood paid for our sins but as that was the blood of God, it was His divine nature that gave it divine saving power. He walked through closed door with His human body but it is His divine power that allowed Him to go through that door. He died on the Cross for our sins as death was a human characteristic yet it is proper to say God died according to the flesh. For while the divine nature cannot die, the person of Jesus did died because His human nature did possessed death as an attribute. But it was divine power that raised Him from death and defeated death. His submission to do God's will reflected His human will which submitted to the divine will which He possessed (hence one person of God and man, with two natures and two wills, neither mixed, as when some say the humanity of Christ ceased to exist, nor seperated, as when some say omit the man Jesus was born, but not the divine Jesus). Such are many examples in the Gospels of His two natures in communion together, working together, and involving communication of attributes.

More to the point, He showed He isn't limited to one spot to the human eye then when He promised to heal a human from miles away and He healed that person right there and then despite to the human eye, the distance between Him and the person healed. He said He would be with us to the end of the ages. He spoke from context of having all authority given Him. Now that wouldn't be in accordance with His divine nature, since as God, He had authority all along. It would be in accordance with His human nature that is glorified by His resurrection and Ascension. So likewise, His promise to be with us would mean the whole Jesus, including His humanity, not just the divine nature. And He could do so despite human nature by itself limited to one location because of it joined in communion with the divine nature in one person where the divine nature can communicate attribute to it without obliteration the human nature and without taking away from the human nature retaining its own characteristics. Hence, it wasn't impossible with Him as God Incarnate to be present in body and blood in the Eucharist even when He was there to the  human eyes and ears to institute it. Nor impossible now to be present in both Baptism and Eucharist though both are all over the world.

To have a Jesus with us with only the divine nature in Word and Sacrament would mean a pre-incarnate God the Son, not Christ as Incarnate God as He is now. He is both God and man. It is proper to say the Man Jesus, as Paul called in 1 Timothy 2, was God as Paul called him in Philippians 2. And it is proper to call the God Christ man as well. God is man, and man is God are proper phrases in reference to Christ and no one else. He is with us to the end of the ages as both God and man as He promised He would. If He was just man only, He would not have been able to do so. But He was also God so what He wills divinely, He could accomplish. The whole person of God with us (as in Immanuel) is thus not destitute of His humanity.

Think of fire and iron joined together. Fire (like divine nature) heats up the iron (as in human nature). Fire remains fire with own characteristic while iron has communication of attributes (heat) given it. And iron still retains own characteristics even as it takes on new characteristics. Yet together iron and fire though two become joined, with each retaining own characteristics yet fire giving iron its heat.

This the God and Savior of all men that we confessed to.

Here we stand.

Mary: Mother of God

There is a deep aversion within mainstream Evangelicalism to call  Mary anything other than the mother of Jesus. The terms "Mother of God" or even the ancient "Theotokos" are frowned upon. But why?

I think there are two major reasons as to why this is so. The first reason is that people do not understand the theology behind the title. The second reason is that people are scared of Roman Catholicism in particular and church history in general; instead preferring an approach that boils down to "me, my bible, and the Holy Spirit."

The most common arguments that I have run across regarding the term Mother of God is that a) this makes Mary divine, b) this allows for prayers to Mary, and c) she is simply the mother of Jesus the man.

Look, I understand the hesitance. I really do. Yet, all of these arguments fall flat. In the first case, the answer is no, it does not make Mary divine. In all actuality, calling Mary the Mother of God is a statement about Jesus. Jesus was really God while in the womb of Mary. After all, we confess that He was conceived by the Holy Spirit (Apostle's Creed). If Jesus was conceived by the Holy Spirit, He is God, even at conception. Therefore, Mary was carrying the fully divine -and fully human- Jesus in her womb. Really and truly, Mary bore God in her womb. It does not make Mary divine!

In the second case; that this title allows for prayer to Mary, well, that is simply not true. In reality, Mary being the Mother of God and praying to her don't have much to do with each other. One does not naturally flow from the other one, as it were. This doctrine of praying to Mary for interecession is extrapolated from other ideas in addition to Mary being the Mother of Christ.

The third objection is a true argument in one way. Mary is actually the mother of Jesus the man. That is true. But, Christ is one person, not two. Thus, if Mary is the mother of Jesus the man, she is also the mother of Jesus the God, for you cannot separate the natures of Christ from His person. To do so is to commit the heresy of Nestorianism. Or worse.

To sum this all up, the terms Mother of God as well as the Greek Theotokos are both terms about Christ far more than they are about Mary. And to deny what either of them actually teaches runs a person headlong into Christological heresy.

Therefore, as Confessional Lutherans, we ought to cherish these terms as terms that are part of our catholic heritage. Not only so, we ought to use them freely because they are true and accurately reflect what we believe regarding Mary!

Using them does not make us Roman Catholics, nor does it require that we seek Mary as an intercessor. Using them simply makes us orthodox. These terms are, to put it bluntly, biblical. The Roman Catholic church did not invent the term Mother of God in order to elevate Mary to some sort of divine status. We use it because we are orthodox Christians. We are not Nestorians or some other sort of heresy.

So, use these terms freely. They are true. They are historical. They speak about Christ. And they are biblical.

+Pax+