So you think. So be it. Yes, you're coherent explanation of your own understanding and position on things would help me to understand where you are on said things. That's kind of how conversation works. But, insult my intelligence as you like; it matters not to me.
LOL! He's saying, Matthias, that one's nature is not a distinct person, and refuting the notion that Christ Himself was, during His life on earth ~ or now, I guess... ~ two persons rather than just one, and affirming that He was one person with two natures. This is precisely what he says in that paragraph you're quoting from:
"Christ’s impersonal human nature; now, we’re going to deal more fully with this later, but let me just say a word or two about this. The fact, negatively, Christ’s human nature did not form a distinct person. The Lord Jesus was not too persons, but one person. But in him the divine and human natures were united into one undivided and indivisible person. So in the case of our Lord Jesus, we have one person with two natures, not two persons. Not a divine person and a human person united in one human body, but one divine person who existed before he took another nature to himself, who took this second nature so that we have one person but two natures. Now, that follows from the peculiar mode of the incarnation. He did not assume a human person, he assumed a human nature. In other words, the human nature was received into the person of the logos, or into the person of our Lord.... Human nature was taken by the Word, the logos, received to himself. So, negatively we predicate of his human nature no personality. So his human nature is impersonal."
Which, Matthias, is exactly what I've been saying. Again, by "impersonal," he's saying Christ's nature is not itself a person. Why he would feel the need to make that distinction is a bit incredulous, because I don't think anybody actually thinks Jesus was schizophrenic. :) Obviously, he was just expounding on Christ's two natures.
The statement that "Jesus is not a human person but a divine person" is itself ambiguous, really. He became flesh, as John 1:14 clearly states. So in the elemental sense, He was most certainly a "human person" in that he was flesh and blood and bone just as you and I are ~ and in full possession of the human nature. But in the spiritual sense, He was not a "human person" in that he was never
merely possessing of the human nature, as we were from our birth. He was also in full possession, not only from birth but from all eternity, of the divine nature of God.
In any case, for anyone, yes,
the nature is not the person,
the person is the person, and has a nature ~ possibly two, which was the case with Christ, and is the case with all Christians, who are born again of the Spirit, which is what Paul is saying by speaking of the "old man" he exhorts us to "put off" and the "new man" he exhorts us to "put on."
This whole ridiculous conversation is quite enough to give one a headache. :)
Grace and peace to you. Especially grace, which, quite honestly, is not very evident in your mode of "conversation." :) But yes, grace and peace to you in the name of our Lord Jesus.
