There is a premise that I took up fairly early on. It is that Holy Scripture is God’s revelation to His people. Jesus taught in parables so that seeing they would not perceive and hearing they would not understand. Who is ‘they’? I believe that ‘they’ includes everyone who is either chosen but too lazy to really work to understand what He is telling us, or not chosen and thus completely blind to Him. Harsh maybe, but to me that is what reason dictates.
I abhor mystery in what is supposed to be a revelation! If God reveals all we can know about Jesus Christ, which I believe he does, then His nature as our Redeemer must be understandable to those willing to accept what is revealed about it. Is the nature of Jesus Christ any more of a mystery than the nature of any other man, really? Or do we make it that way in some effort at artificial humility?
In the sin of Adam all are fallen. Therefore in God’s economy, the moral ability and holiness of the child is inherited of the father.
The Father of Jesus Christ is God. His moral ability and holiness is inherited of the Father.
John 1:14 And the Word became flesh, and [a]dwelt among us, and we saw His glory, glory as of [b]the only begotten from the Father, full of grace and truth.
Is it necessary to shoehorn two distinct natures in the same person to explain Him? I grant that those who came before us and passed on their best understanding to us should be respected but not blindly followed to the end of their journey and no farther! The KISS principle applies.
God created Adam, but the only Begotten of the Father IS the Son, Jesus Christ!
So do we really need the mystery of the hyostatic union when a simpler and far easier to understand (to me) explanation is at hand? Or am I a heretic for having the temerity to even think about such a deep and holy topic?