A Question Concerning John 1: 18

===

IMO: that "lowering" did not effect an inequality with the Father in essence OR in attributes OR in the use of attributes because: (1) the true and complete humanity and its qualities was an addition to not a replacement of or blending with the deity and its qualities, and, (2) the eternal divine Son was not limited to the humanity but existed in His fulness outside of the humanity as well carrying out relationships within and without the triune Godhead.

 

As the Scripture states He was "lowered" (in rank) to a man in order that He might be able to die, mortal, subject to death.

A general is greater in rank than a private but no better a man than the private.

He is equal to the general in his essential manhood, no greater no less.


HankD </font>[/QUOTE]===

Where your analogy with ranks in the service breaks apart IMO is that private and general have but one nature in which they exist.

Christ has two and , IMO, must continue in His deity when being incarnated. Just as Solomon's Temple cannot contain all of God, so neither can a body and soul of man contain all of the Son.

IMO the lowering is defined by the taking on of humanity. That humanity is lowered. IN that humanity the Son also is lowered. BUT IMO God the Son is not confined to that humanity ; He exists beyond it.

IMO deity cannot be lowered in rank because sovereignty is an attribute of God. To relinquish divine attributes or the use of them IMO requires relinquishing deity.

That which does not have the use of the divine attributes, IMO, is not God. So, IMO, in manhood HE was limited, but He was not limited to His manhood.

His Manhood does not = His deity.

 

===

In my perception the difference between God the Father and the Son as God is neither in essence nor in attributes, which I think, inhere in essence. Rather the difference is in the two (and w-the HS three) eternal and necessary hypostases(ie, the three personifications of the one Being ) of that one, entire essence.

Again, IMO, the addition of the humanity changed not one bit the relationship of Son as God to God the Father . The Son as God must, I think, ever remain the perfect equal of the Father in essence, attributes, and authority.

But in the incarnation, with the addition of humanity, IN THAT HUMANITY , not in His deity, I think the Son could be humbled.

IMO, the humanity is complete with a human mind and will. In these, I think, the Son obeys and is otherwise limited...not in His divine mind and will which must remain the precise equivalent of the Fathers (IMHO).

I know that much of this is speculation ; I look forward to the Day when I will know as I am known.

 

I wonder how Romans 8:3 fits into this?

"God sending His own Son in the likeness of sinful flesh" (KJV).

The reason I mention this text is that if Carl is correct that the sonship of the second Person of the eternal Trinity began when the Word became enfleshed, then why would Paul not say, "God sending His own **Word** in the likeness of sinful flesh"?


Of course I also wonder why Paul, who speaks of the incarnation as in Phil 2, does not ever refer to that preincarnational Person as "the Word."

I wonder how the **Son** could be sent in that likeness of sinful flesh unless He existed as Son before that sending?

 

Doctor Bill,

It fits "historically" written by Paul AFTER the Son was manifested in flesh.

This is that "mental theology" of which I spoke. I'm not worried about why Paul didn't say it DUE TO SOME "conjecture" that I might have, nor am I worried about what he DID NOT say. I BELIEVE WHAT HE DID SAY.

John's terminology is not Paul's. The book of John concerns the FACT that Jesus Christ is the Son of God (John 21) WHO WAS THE WORD in eternity. (John 1) The Word (God) was made flesh MANIFESTED by the Son.

Paul's terminology is God, NOT WORD. (1 Tim.3:16)

In Christ Jesus,
Carl [/QB][/QUOTE]


====

Bill blathers on, part one:


Carl (or any)

I'm going to respond in two parts because at times AOL beeps me off and the "beep, beep" that I am tempted to then spout out no where in no way exemplifies the patience of our dear God.

This topic in this thread is over the question of whether JC is eternally God's Son or whether He was eternally The Word, not the Son, and became Son in time. As I understand it, Carl is saying the latter ; I tend to think that JC eternally is the Son of God. IMO neither view is a heresy as long as what is affirmed is the eternality of the deity of JC as the second Person of the Trinity.

Thankyou Carl for your responses and reasons. They are compelling and well thought out. Nevertheless, I will have to think more on them and weigh them in the light of other evidence before I change my opinion. Here are some things I am thinking about:

1) I am not sure that you have efficiently countered my suggestion re Rom 8:3. Similar texts are 1 Jo 4:9;3:8; Heb 1:6 ; and, Gal 4:4. I remain in the thinking that that which is sent into something likely existed in the status it was sent prior to the sending.

2) I assume that you do not think that the incarnation stopped the status of the second Trinal Person as Word. JC is still the Word--right? If so, then it seems to me that there is a problem because only John calls JC The Word.

a) Neither Mt, nor Mk, nor Lk in his Gospel calls JC The Word."

b) In Acts no sermon by an evangelist or an apostle calls Christ "The Word."

c) no seeker of truth is recorded asking any apostle any question about "the Word."

d) Paul , to whom so much was revealed and who wrote so much, never calls Christ "The Word."

e) Peter and James in their Epistles never calls Christ "The Word."

No NT writer, save John, who was the last to write , regardless of whether JCs eternal status is being discussed or not calls Him "The Word"! Why?

Now, I understand that your counter may be that all other writers used the term "God" for JCs eternal condition. But, if John could use the term "God" for that, then, why could not the others use the term "Word"?

Besides these writers use other terms besides "God." Phil 2 has "form of God." Heb 1 has "image of God." But no where else except in John is JC called "The Word."

Now, if it is at all important for us to make a distinction that "Word" is JCs preincarnate condition and "Son" is His post incarnate condition, then, I'm really at a loss to explain these data.


cont.

[ May 20, 2005, 01:03 PM: Message edited by: UZThD ]

 

Bill blathers on, part two:

3) It seems to me that Jo 10:30-36 ( cf 5:18) is equating "Sonship" with equality with God..deity. That would seem to mean that more than His humanity, the result of His incarnation and VB, is meant by "Son of God" as humanity is not deity.

Of course it can be countered that as JC is both true and complete God and true and complete Man that either of those states can be alluded to when using the phrase "Son of God." That is true! As Son of God He can be weary or be omnipotent, depending on which nature is the referent. So, this may not be very convincing.

Yet, what it does seem to show is that the title SOG when used of JC may allude to His deity...and His deity is eternal. If that title can in a particular text, not in all occurences of it of course, reference exclusively His deity, and His deity is eternal, then perhaps it can also reference in some places exclusively His preincarnate state.

4) Rom 1:4 may contrast His human with His divine nature and connect the title "Son of God" to the latter.

5) "son of" is a Hebraism meaning equal to. So, "sons of the prophets" does not mean descendants of, but "prophets." (sons of goldsmith, sons of the soldiers etc). Perhaps, then, "Son of God" means equal to God not born of God.

6) While the majority of the Church disagreed with you some accept your position as A. Campbell a founder of the C.o.C. (I think he was, -see The Christian system, 9)

Of course we don't prove something is Biblical by appeals to Church leaders. But here's an item of interest:

It is thought that Ignatius was an actual disciple of Johns. Of course, the Apostolic Fathers made mistakes. Nevertheless, I find it interesting that Ignatius , unlike Paul, Peter, Matthew, Mark, Luke, and James speaks of JC being "The Word" just as did his mentor John .

Perhaps Ignatius' understanding of that term was what he got from John. But Ignatius says that it was the only begotten Son who became Man. (To The Ephesians, Longer Version, Chap 7).

cont.

 

Bill Blathers on, part three:

Getting windy in here, eh?

7) I thought I'd just make a P.S. that the real issue is the meaning of Jo 1:14. Let's believe what John says!

"The Word was made flesh, and dwelt among us, (and we beheld his glory, the glory as of the only begotten of the Father, ... ."

The issue , it seems to me, is: does OB have as its referent "The Word"?

a) We might think "no," because JC is said to be Son of God by the VB (Lk 1:35), and the VB=made flesh and so, JC could not have been OB before the incarnation.

Yet, JC's being Son of God may be connected with His baptism (some say, Mt 3:17), His resurrection (Rom 1:4), and His Messiahship too (Jo 1:49). Since His Sonship may be connected to these four events or states, I wonder if ANY of them really are the cause of His Sonship; perhaps the cause is beyond any temporal circumstance.

b) I wonder if 1:14 is not saying that The Word dwelt among us. Of course, He is said to have been made flesh. But, does 1:14 literally and clearly say that that being made flesh was what made Him only begotten? Perhaps it is saying that that being made flesh is what made Him dwelling among us.

c) They see the glory of the OB. Is this glory an attribute of the flesh or the Word...of the incarnate or of the preincarnate state?

It seems that the glory would be of the preincarnate because it was His before the incarnation ( Jo 17:5). That glory was visible at times through the flesh.

BUT, if that glory were an attribute of the preincarnate JC and if it were an attribute of the OB, then, possibly , we should see the conditions of preincarnate and OB to be somewhat synonomous.

I agree: What let's believe what John says! At issue is, what is he saying?