Would it make more sense that God would identify Himself as being the Father to the Word, or to His own Son?
-
Welcome to Baptist Board, a friendly forum to discuss the Baptist Faith in a friendly surrounding.
Your voice is missing! You will need to register to get access to all the features that our community has to offer.
We hope to see you as a part of our community soon and God Bless!
The Eternal Son.
- Thread starter 37818
- Start date
its difficult to figure out God, so, I'm not sure at this point
RighteousnessTemperance&
Well-Known Member
In other words, something regarding God fundamentally changed at the Incarnation, which would be the point precisely.
RighteousnessTemperance&
Well-Known Member
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.
RighteousnessTemperance&
Well-Known Member
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.
37818
Well-Known Member
Well, the human soul is mortal. When the Word became a mortal human His soul became mortal. Ezekiel 18:4. Isaiah 53:10-12. James 5:20. In His bodily resurrection He again became immortal, Hebrews 13:8. In His deity His Soul never changed. He being one soul with two natures.
Last edited:
37818
Well-Known Member
Funny, Psalms 2:7 is the very text which convinced me of the unBiblical falsehood of the words, ". . . begotten from the Father before all ages, . . ."
37818
Well-Known Member
What tradition fails to understand, not that the Word as "was God" did not change, but how the Word did change, the Word in being made flesh changed how the Word was "with God," John 1:2.
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.
Perhaps this is why he took the "mystery of God" escape hatch.
37818
Well-Known Member
God who is the self Existent, how He must need be the three Persons. All the three Persons are one and the same self Existent. The second Person is both God and *not God, not God in that He alone on behalf of being God does everything God does. All the temporal actions as God, create, speak appear. John 1:3. The third Person is how they are the one and the same God, John 4:24. This simple is not simple. It is in plain evidence in the NT. Tradition calls this it a mystery, but Trinity is the name of the explanation.
* As someone other than God, "with God," John 1:2.
* YHWH, God the Father. Proverbs 21:30.
* The Word, the Logos, the uncaused Cause, the Son of God. John 1:3.
* The Holy Spirit, one essence how all three Persons are one essence. John 4:24. Romans 8:9, Romans 8:16. 1 John 5:10. 1 Corinthians 2:16.
* As someone other than God, "with God," John 1:2.
* YHWH, God the Father. Proverbs 21:30.
* The Word, the Logos, the uncaused Cause, the Son of God. John 1:3.
* The Holy Spirit, one essence how all three Persons are one essence. John 4:24. Romans 8:9, Romans 8:16. 1 John 5:10. 1 Corinthians 2:16.
Last edited:
RighteousnessTemperance&
Well-Known Member
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.
RighteousnessTemperance&
Well-Known Member
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.'"
RighteousnessTemperance&
Well-Known Member
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.
Last edited:
RighteousnessTemperance&
Well-Known Member
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.
RighteousnessTemperance&
Well-Known Member
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.
RighteousnessTemperance&
Well-Known Member
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.