Featured The Eternal Son.

Would it make more sense that God would identify Himself as being the Father to the Word, or to His own Son?

 

its difficult to figure out God, so, I'm not sure at this point

 

In other words, something regarding God fundamentally changed at the Incarnation, which would be the point precisely.

 

You may disagree with part of it, but do you disagree with this part? "Unless God has a human nature the way he has a divine nature, in other words always and inherently, then something changed."

 

well yes that is definitely something i will need to chew and ruminate about.
excellent.

 

In explaining his latest view, MacArthur seems to avoid issues related to the Incarnation and human nature altogether, as if they are essentially irrelevant to the discussion.

In his effort to appease the majority, he seems to have gone too far. He even ends up saying Scripture employs the phrase "eternal generation," though he earlier says he is not fond of the expression and points out that Spurgeon says it is "'a term that does not convey to us any great meaning; it simply covers up our ignorance.'" The Bible does not use it.

I do appreciate his admission that "the doctrine of Christ's eternal sonship" is "a mystery into which we should not expect to pry too deeply." Even better would be "we should not presume to pry too deeply," including the extent of the eternality. We can agree it extends forward in all directions, just not necessarily backward to include always, and certainly not all ways.

 

Yes, suddenly while reading his paper I realized MacArthur's problem : Considering the immutability of God combined with Hebrews 13:8 Jesus Christ the same yesterday, and to day, and for ever - meant that Christ's humanity would have to reach back into the endless eons of eternity past.

Perhaps this is why he took the "mystery of God" escape hatch.

 

However, MacArthur never actually goes there. He avoids it altogether. The only thing he says is that sonship itself must be involved, and then proceeds to link it solely to the divine nature, with no reference to the human.

 

MacArthur further glosses over the Incarnation by saying Matthew 1:20 attributes it to the Holy Spirit, which is also mentioned in Matthew 1:18. True enough, but he ignores the version in Luke 1:35. In answer to Mary's question, "How can this be?" "The angel answered, 'The Holy Spirit will come on you, and the power of the Most High will overshadow you. So the holy one to be born will be called the Son of God.'"

 

Does the immutability of the Divine in being, person, or nature preclude the acquisition of human nature? The Scriptures would answer no.

Is not Jesus fully God, fully human? Are the two a mixture? There is nothing divine demanding the human nature be inherently eternal, or anything suggesting it could be without itself being divine.

"With God all things are possible." Other than man's finite mind, there is nothing saying God cannot conceive access to Himself in a way that does not change His divinity. If anything, everything about the Incarnation from conception to resurrection says He did in fact do so.

 

true, he avoids what I think he strongly supects.

 

but that seems to be saying that God can change without actually changing.
so eternal humanity should be possible as well. hmm that sounds Mormonesque.

 

Actually, it's the other way round. Eternal humanity is precisely what Christianity proclaims, everlasting life or everlasting death. Insisting eternal must refer to an existence with no beginning is a manmade problem, not a biblical one.

 

There seems a common theme among the religious, a concern for the purity of deity, and this is true of Christendom. Even the heresy of Islam denies Jesus could have been crucified, as God would never let such a thing happen to one of his prophets. Many deny the Godhead for related reasons. There are points in the OT concerned with sacred things, in which case it can go either way, depending.

However, when the Christ hits the scene it is abundantly clear that he is never diminished. Rather the unclean are made clean, the sick are healed, the impure are purified. When he finally lays down his life, he is gloriously resurrected. There is nothing that can mar the Deity. He is divine, immutable. The transformative power of God should never be underestimated, and it would be hard to overstate. But it is always one way.

We need to fully acknowledge the divinity of Jesus, but this includes getting over this unbiblical worry of somehow diminishing it by marveling at his perfect humanity to the point of actually denying it by making it divinity.

 

My further point is to strongly caution against the glib attitude of thinking we deeply understand these concepts by putting names to them, or by subscribing to supposed authorities, or by joining a majority.

We must not become like the scientists, or their audience, who think they understand what gravity or light or energy is because they can describe its effects or harness it for use. Or worse, subscribe to a theory because of credentials of proponents, or because it is the majority view.

The honest physicist admits we do not really know what these physical phenomena are, and the honest theologian admits we do not really divine these mysterious aspects of God.

 

yes remember "paint by the numbers" pictures you could buy at the five and dime and paint?

It seems many brethren have a "paint by the numbers" theology.