The “Dual Nature” Doctrine: How 2nd-Century Blasphemy Became 4th-Century Orthodoxy
A common Trinitarian gloss states that “Jesus is 100% God and 100% man.” No Scripture ever says this. This statement is actually a subtle admission in disguise—an attempt to preserve the genuine humanity of Jesus while still insisting that He must also be “true God” in order to explain the miracles and works He did. But this is a false dilemma. Instead of listening to what the Bible—especially Jesus Himself—explains, they create a doctrine the Bible never teaches.
God Knows His Math—Trinitarians Don’t
Moreover, the statement is a mathematical impossibility. Let’s make this plain before we get to Scripture and history.
To say “100% man and 100% God” is to use a mathematical term (percentage) to describe a supposed mystery. One hundred percent is a fractional way of saying “the whole”—100% = 100/100 = 1 whole. Therefore, 100% + 100% = 1 + 1 = 2 wholes, not 1.
If a mathematician graded a paper where a student claimed that 100% + 100% = 1, that student would fail. Would you believe theologians if they told you that with God, 1 + 1 = 1? I hope not—but sadly, many accept it when framed as “mystery.”
The trick they hope you don’t notice is hiding the whole number (1) inside a percentage (100%) and treating them as if they are different. But both 100% and 1 represent the same totality. And if they protest that “we’re not talking about math,” then they need to explain why they’re the ones who introduced mathematical language to defend their doctrine.
Can a God who “can’t get simple math right” be trusted? Of course not. But the issue isn’t with God or Jesus—it’s with theologians who twist clear concepts and then call the resulting contradictions “divine mysteries” (of which they also happen to be the gatekeepers).
A contradiction is not the same as a mystery. Biblically speaking, a “mystery” is a sacred secret that has not yet been revealed, never is it a contradiction (1 Corinthians 14:33). A contradiction, on the other hand, is when “A” both is and is not “A” at the same time in the same relationship. And that’s exactly what “100% man and 100% God” claims: that Jesus is fully a man (“A”) and fully not a man (God) at the same time in the same relationship. That’s not “the simplicity of Christ” (2 Corinthians 11:3)—it’s theological sleight of hand passing off a lie (1+1=1) and claiming it as spirituality.
The real problem is not with God or with Jesus or with the Bible. God has commanded us to believe that He is unequivocally one “He.”
Deuteronomy 10:20: “You shall fear Yahweh your God. You shall serve him. You shall cling to him, and you shall swear by his name.” That’s one “He.” Jesus confirmed this in Mark 12:29-33: “Jesus answered, ‘The greatest is, “Hear, Israel, the Lord our God, the Lord is one.”’”
What the Bible Does Teach
Neither the God of the Bible nor Jesus ever claimed that Jesus consists of two complete natures in one person. Instead, Jesus consistently pointed to the Father as the source of His power, authority, and the one actually doing the “God-works” through Him. Let’s let these scriptures inform our thoughts on this rather than man’s bad math:
John 8:29: “He who sent me is with me. The Father hasn’t left me alone, for I always do the things that are pleasing to him.”
John 14:10: “Don’t you believe that I am in the Father, and the Father in me? The words that I tell you, I speak not from myself; but the Father who lives in me does his works.”
John 16:32: “Behold, the time is coming, yes, and has now come, that you will be scattered, everyone to his own place, and you will leave me alone. Yet I am not alone, because the Father is with me.”
Acts 2:22: “Men of Israel, hear these words! Jesus of Nazareth, a man approved by God to you by mighty works and wonders and signs which God did by him among you, even as you yourselves know.”
2 Corinthians 5:19: “God was in Christ reconciling the world to himself, not reckoning to them their trespasses, and having committed to us the word of reconciliation.”
John 5:19: “Jesus therefore answered them, ‘Most certainly, I tell you, the Son can do nothing of himself, but what he sees the Father doing. For whatever things he does, these the Son also does likewise.’”
John 5:30: “I can of myself do nothing. As I hear, I judge, and my judgment is righteous; because I don’t seek my own will, but the will of my Father who sent me.”
John 7:16: “Jesus therefore answered them, ‘My teaching is not mine, but his who sent me.’”
John 12:49–50: “For I spoke not from myself, but the Father who sent me, he has given me a commandment, what I should say, and what I should speak. I know that his commandment is eternal life. The things therefore which I speak, even as the Father has said to me, so I speak.”
Acts 10:38: “Even Jesus of Nazareth, how God anointed him 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.”
These passages together form an unmistakable pattern:
- Jesus did not speak, teach, or act from Himself.
- The Father was with Him, working through Him.
- The miracles were God’s works through the man Jesus.
- Jesus’ identity as Son is defined by this agency and dependence, not by sharing an essence.
Back to Math 101
Jesus said, “Most certainly, I tell you, the Son can do nothing of himself…” (John 5:19), and again, “I can of myself do nothing…” (John 5:30). He also said, “You seek to kill me, a man who has told you the truth which I heard from God” (John 8:40).
Mathematically speaking—and following the Trinitarian precedent for using such terms—Jesus just told us He is 0% God, since “nothing” is represented by the number zero, and 100% man, since “a man” represents one whole.
On the other hand, He also said, “I am not alone, but I am with the Father who sent me. It’s also written in your law that the testimony of two people is valid. I am one who testifies about myself, and the Father who sent me testifies about me” (John 8:16–17).
So according to Jesus, there are two persons, not two natures, involved in His works—person one being the Father, and person two being Himself. And since it is written, “With God nothing (0) shall be impossible” (Luke 1:37), while Jesus said He could “do nothing (0) of Himself” (John 5:19, 30), the Bible teaches that it is mathematically, functionally, and theologically impossible for Jesus Himself to be God.
This means the deity of Christ is the Father working in and through Him, just as Jesus Himself said.
Proverbs 30:6: “Don’t add to His words, lest He reprove you, and you be found a liar.”
From Scriptural Simplicity to Philosophical Complexity
That’s why not a single scripture instructs us to understand Jesus as switching between two “natures” — a so-called divine nature and a human nature — depending on the situation. Not one. The Bible never teaches that Jesus sometimes acted from His “deific side” and other times from His “human side.”
That entire notion is a fallacy that contradicts what Scripture actually reveals — that what is truly God about Jesus is the Father in Him, working through Him. This is an entirely different concept from the false “dual nature of Christ” doctrine that arose from philosophical speculation rather than divine revelation—and it is a truth the Bible itself clearly explains.
Yes, we can point to Jesus doing things that only God could empower—and people often do, claiming this “implies” a dual nature. But none of those passages say that Jesus possessed two natures. That idea has to be read into the text, not drawn from it. To make that claim is to negate the consistent biblical explanation that those mighty works were the Father Himself working through Him. As Jesus said, “The Father who lives in me does his works” (John 14:10). Peter testified the same: “Jesus of Nazareth, a man approved by God to you by mighty works and wonders and signs which God did by him” (Acts 2:22). And Paul wrote, “God was in Christ reconciling the world to himself” (2 Corinthians 5:19).
To make matters worse, the dual nature concept didn’t originate in Scripture at all—we are going to demonstrate that it directly came from outside of it. What Scripture does explain with perfect clarity was then later buried under philosophical speculation. What the apostles taught in simplicity was eventually recast through philosophical and Gnostic categories, producing doctrines that neither Jesus nor His apostles ever taught.
It’s to that historical shift that we turn our focus now to ultimately expose the true origin of the so-called “dual nature” doctrine.
Where the Dual Nature Doctrine Really Came From
Not many people realize this, but Trinitarians “officially” teach that the Logos was joined to flesh, contrary to the scripture that says that the Logos was made flesh. But “joined” is not what John wrote. The idea of “joining” rather than “becoming” comes directly from Gnosticism, one of Christianity’s earliest detractors:
“There was a great variety of Gnostic systems, but a common pattern ran through them all. From the pleroma, or spiritual world of aeons, the divine Christ descended and united himself for a time…to the historical personage of Jesus; and according to most accounts the latter’s body was formed, not out of ordinary flesh, but of ‘psychic’ substance. Thus the Gnostics’ Christology tended to be pluralist; Christ Jesus on their view, as Irenaeus pointed out, was compounded by two distinct substances (ousiai), being at once the heavenly Christ and Jesus, the Son of the Demiurge, in a loose sort of liaison. It was also docetic, either as teaching that the heavenly Christ was invisible, impalpable and impassible, or as implying that the lower Christ himself, with whom the heavenly Christ joined himself, was not real flesh and blood.”
— J.N.D. Kelly, Early Christian Doctrines, 142.
Kelly notes that Irenaeus himself pointed out this dual-substance teaching. Let’s look at what Irenaeus actually said, to feel the full weight of his response to it:
“Therefore did the Lord also say to his disciples…‘Thus it is written, and thus it behoved Christ to suffer, and to rise again from the dead, and that repentance for the remission of sins be preached in his name among all nations.’ Now this is he who was born of Mary; for he says: ‘The Son of man must suffer many things, and be rejected, and crucified, and on the third day rise again.’ The Gospel, therefore, knew no other son of man but him who was of Mary, who also suffered; and no Christ who flew away from Jesus before the passion; but him who was born it knew as Jesus Christ the Son of God, and that this same suffered and rose again, as John, the disciple of the Lord, verifies, saying: ‘But these are written, that ye might believe that Jesus is the Christ, the Son of God, and that believing ye might have eternal life in his name,’ –foreseeing these blasphemous systems which divide the Lord, as far as lies in their power, saying that he was formed of two different substances. For this reason also he has thus testified to us in his Epistle: ‘Little children, it is the last time; and as ye have heard that Antichrist doth come, now have many antichrists appeared…’”
— Against Heresies, Book 3, Chapter 16, §5.
Let these words sink in: “blasphemous systems… divide the Lord… saying that he was formed of two different substances.” Irenaeus represented the mainstream, orthodox Christian view of his time. He was never considered a heretic by his contemporaries but was recognized as a defender of the faith against Gnostic errors. He explicitly says that John foresaw and wrote against this very dual-nature doctrine, which remains central to both Trinitarianism and Oneness theology.
It was only after Irenaeus that Tertullian adopted this “dual natures” doctrine from the Gnostics rather than rejecting it:
“…Not confused, but conjoined, Jesus, in one Person at once God and man.” — Tertullian, Against Praxeus, 27.
Athanasius followed in the same line:
“…While it was impossible for the Word to suffer death, being immortal, and Son of the Father; to this end he takes to himself a body capable of death, that it, by partaking of the Word who is above all, might be worthy to die in the stead of all.”
“…God, the Word himself, who was united with the body, while ordering all things, also by the works he did in the body shewed himself to be not man, but God the Word.”
— Athanasius, On the Incarnation of the Word, 9.
Gregory of Nyssa articulated it in similar terms:
“…The flesh; which we receive by faith as conjoined with the Word… We assign every particular phrase accordingly to one or other of these Natures which we conceive…” — Against Eunomius, Book 6.
Athanasius even defended this “union” by appealing to Greek philosophy:
“Turning to the Greeks… that they allow the existence of a pervading Spirit, whose presence is the sustaining principle of all things, (Athanasius) challenges them to reject, without inconsistency, the Union of that Spirit, the Logos… it was man’s nature that the Word united to himself…”
— Athanasius, Select letters. On the Incarnation of the Word, Introduction to the Treatise on the Incarnation of the Word, Nicene and Post Nicene Fathers, Vol 4, ed. Philip Schaff and Henry Wace, available at www.ccel.org/ccel/schaff/npnf204.vii.i.html, last accessed September 1, 2011.
But John 1:14 says the Word was made flesh — not “joined to” flesh. Likewise, Romans 1:3 and Galatians 4:4 state that God’s Son was “made of a woman” according to the flesh. Trinitarians interpret Christ in a way that mirrors Greek pagan ideas of divine beings joining themselves to mortals. J.N.D. Kelly confirms this:
“Tertullian’s Christology was its grasp of the two natures in Christ; to use the term which he preferred, the Saviour was composed of ‘two substances’… Tertullian has the distinction of being the first theologian frankly to tackle this issue… he sums up: ‘We observe a twofold condition, not confused but conjoined, Jesus, in one Person at once God and man’… If it is said that Christ suffered and died, the reference is to the human substance. God does not suffer; the Christ-spirit cannot even have ‘suffered with’ (compassus) the flesh, as the modalists like to plead…” (Early Christian Doctrines, 150–152).
Gregory of Nyssa likewise wrote:
“We, then, neither attribute our own salvation to a man, nor admit that the incorruptible and Divine Nature is capable of suffering and mortality: but (in regards to Christ)…when we hear of pain…of blood, of wounds, of burial, of the sepulchre, and all else of this kind…we none the less admit them to be things to be believed, and true, having regard to the flesh; which we receive by faith as conjoined with the Word…We assign every particular phrase accordingly to one or other of these Natures which we conceive in the mystery, that which is human to the Humanity, that which is lofty to the Godhead, and say that, as God, the Son is certainly impassible and incapable of corruption: and whatever suffering is asserted concerning him in the Gospel, he assuredly wrought by means of his Human Nature which admitted of such suffering.” — Against Eunomius, Book 6.
Notice Gregory’s statement: “We neither attribute our own salvation to a man.” This stands in direct contradiction to Scripture:
1 Corinthians 15:21–22: “For since death came by man, the resurrection of the dead also came by man. For as in Adam all die, so also in Christ all will be made alive.”
Romans 5:12, 15, 17–19: “Therefore, as sin entered into the world through one man, and death through sin; and so death passed to all men, because all sinned… by the trespass of the one the many died, much more did the grace of God, and the gift by the grace of the one man, Jesus Christ, abound to the many… For if by the trespass of the one, death reigned through the one; so much more will those who receive the abundance of grace and of the gift of righteousness reign in life through the one, Jesus Christ. So then as through one trespass, all men were condemned; even so through one act of righteousness, all men were justified to life. For as through the one man’s disobedience many were made sinners, even so through the obedience of the one, many will be made righteous.”
There is no Scripture claiming that “God had to be obedient to God” to undo Adam’s sin. Salvation is certainly of God and through Christ, but the one who obeyed was a man — Jesus the Messiah.
By contrast, pagan philosophers held that “only a divine person” could save:
“…it seems to me that, as the body (by itself naturally) tends to become dispersed, it would need a savior that was a divinity.” — Numenius, The Neoplatonic Writings of Numenius, 8.
And according to Trinitarian theology, even the Son didn’t really die:
“The impassibility of the Father is… taught by the nature and proclaimed by the divine Scripture. We shall then further confess the Son to be impassible, for this definition is enforced by the identity of substance. Whenever then we hear the divine Scripture proclaiming the cross and the death of the Master Christ we attribute the passion to the flesh, for in no wise is the Godhead, being by nature impassible, capable of suffering.”
— Theodoret, Dialogues, Demonstrations by Syllogisms.
Who Died?
If the Son is “impassible,” incapable of suffering or dying, then who actually died for our sins?Who was tempted? Who prayed with tears and was heard for his godly fear? According to the Trinitarian view, only “the human nature” did these things—not their impassible divine Son. But Scripture clearly attributes these experiences to the Son himself:
Hebrews 2:9: “But we see him who has been made a little lower than the angels, Jesus, because of the suffering of death crowned with glory and honor, that by the grace of God he should taste of death for everyone.”
Hebrews 4:15: “For we don’t have a high priest who can’t be touched with the feeling of our infirmities, but one who has been in all points tempted like we are, yet without sin.”
Hebrews 5:7–8: “He, in the days of his flesh, having offered up prayers and petitions with strong crying and tears to him who was able to save him from death, and having been heard for his godly fear, though he was a Son, yet learned obedience by the things which he suffered.”
1 Peter 3:18: “Because Christ also suffered for sins once, the righteous for the unrighteous, that he might bring you to God, being put to death in the flesh, but made alive in the spirit.”
This entire Trinitarian framework rests on the “one substance” (“three persons in one substance,” homoousious) doctrine—a concept never once taught in Scripture—because without it, their impassible Son could not truly be the one who suffered, was tempted, prayed, and died.
Trinitarians cannot escape their philosophical commitment to a material God of “substance” and an impassible deity. This leads them to openly deny that the person of the Son of God truly suffered. In doing so, they echo Peter’s error, for which Jesus sharply rebuked him:
Matthew 16:15–17: “He said to them, ‘But who do you say that I am?’ Simon Peter answered, ‘You are the Christ, the Son of the living God.’ Jesus answered him, ‘Blessed are you, Simon Bar Jonah, for flesh and blood has not revealed this to you, but my Father who is in heaven.’”
Matthew 16:21–23: “From that time, Jesus began to show his disciples that he must go to Jerusalem and suffer many things from the elders, chief priests, and scribes, and be killed, and the third day be raised up. Peter took him aside, and began to rebuke him, saying, ‘Far be it from you, Lord! This will never be done to you.’ But he turned, and said to Peter, ‘Get behind me, Satan! You are a stumbling block to me, for you are not setting your mind on the things of God, but on the things of men.’”
The Call to Renewed Minds
Paul commands us, “Don’t be conformed to this world, but be transformed by the renewing of your mind, so that you may prove what is the good, well-pleasing, and perfect will of God” (Romans 12:2). The Trinitarian framework does the opposite: it asks us to interpret Scripture through the world’s wisdom, blending philosophical categories with biblical language. But if that’s our method, then why would we need our minds renewed at all?
Proverbs 14:12 warns us: “There is a way which seems right to a man, but in the end it leads to death.” What we’ve seen through the development of the Trinity is that the early Trinitarians codified the way that seemed right to them, conforming to the world instead of being transformed by the renewing of their minds.
God’s Word renews our thinking by teaching us to receive what He has revealed, not to reinterpret it through alien frameworks. Trinitarian theology relies on philosophical reasoning foreign to Scripture, whereas the apostolic call is to let God define truth and refuse to be conformed to the world’s patterns.
A Sobering Warning: From Jesus, John, and Irenaeus
By denying the suffering of the Son Himself, Trinitarian theology aligns with the very mindset Jesus called “satanic.” And yet this denial is a core element of the official doctrine. That alone should give any honest student of Scripture reason to pause.
Let’s circle back to Irenaeus. He made an observation that deserves to be highlighted. Speaking of the dual nature doctrine, he said:
“…Foreseeing these blasphemous systems which divide the Lord, as far as lies in their power, saying that he was formed of two different substances. For this reason also he has thus testified to us in his Epistle: ‘Little children, it is the last time; and as ye have heard that Antichrist doth come, now have many antichrists appeared…’”
— Against Heresies, Book 3, Chapter 16, §5.
These are sobering words. Here we have testimony from the 2nd century that the following words of John the Apostle were written to warn Christians of the antichrist nature of the dual-substance doctrine:
1 John 2:22-24: “Who is the liar but he who denies that Jesus is the Anointed One? This is the Antichrist, he who denies the Father and the Son. Whoever denies the Son doesn’t have the Father. He who confesses the Son has the Father also.”
1 John 4:3: “and every spirit who doesn’t confess that Jesus Christ has come in the flesh is not of God; and this is the spirit of the Antichrist, of whom you have heard that it comes. Now it is in the world already.”
2 John 1:4: “For many deceivers have gone out into the world, those who don’t confess that Jesus Christ came in the flesh. This is the deceiver and the Antichrist.”
Notice that everything John explained about the antichrist spirit centers on the true nature of who Jesus is:
- “The Anointed One” — God is never anointed; that is an honor He bestows upon people. Thus Jesus said, “All authority has been given to me in heaven and on earth.”
- “Jesus Christ has come in the flesh.”
- “Christ came in the flesh.”
Now compare this to the Trinitarian position:
“Tertullian’s Christology was its grasp of the two natures in Christ… ‘God does not suffer; the Christ-spirit cannot even have ‘suffered with’ (compassus) the flesh, as the modalists like to plead…’” (Early Christian Doctrines, 150–152).
And now compare what you just read about Trinitarian belief with Peter’s words and Jesus’s response:
Matthew 16:21–23: “From that time, Jesus began to show his disciples that he must… suffer many things…Peter took him aside, and began to rebuke him, saying, ‘Far be it from you, Lord! This will never be done to you.’ But he turned, and said to Peter, ‘Get behind me, Satan! You are a stumbling block to me, for you are not setting your mind on the things of God, but on the things of men.’”
Those who see it will understand. Those that won’t are those who justify the antichrist spirit that John warned of.
From that, I’ll let the reader draw their own conclusions.
