# Question re. Incarnation



## lynnie (Nov 29, 2017)

When Jesus incarnated in the womb of Mary, did heaven empty out for nine months of the second person of the Godhead? When Phil 2 says essentially he laid aside his power and glory and what he had in heaven with the father to come to earth and be a man, did the angels have nine months where all of a sudden heaven just had the Father and HS and not the eternal Word?

We were talking at midweek about the angels singing at his birth....were they waiting for it for nine months and maybe even missing him do you think? Or was he somehow in his deity still sort of there? If that is true, can you explain what that looked like better?

Thanks. This is probably basic but my husband thought about for a while and said to ask at the PB


----------



## Southern Presbyterian (Nov 29, 2017)

"The secret things belong to the Lord. . . ." 
Deut. 29:29

This is definitely a secret thing.

Sent from my SM-G935V using Tapatalk

Reactions: Like 1


----------



## OPC'n (Nov 29, 2017)

How could heaven be missing the second person of the Trinity when God the Father, God the Son, and God the Holy Spirit are three persons in one and God is omnipresent? No, heaven wasn't missing the second person of the Trinity while Mary was pregnant. As soon as Mary became pregnant, Jesus was incarcerated thus became in that split second of time the God-man.


----------



## Ask Mr. Religion (Nov 29, 2017)

lynnie said:


> When Jesus incarnated in the womb of Mary, did heaven empty out for nine months of the second person of the Godhead? When Phil 2 says essentially he laid aside his power and glory and what he had in heaven with the father to come to earth and be a man, did the angels have nine months where all of a sudden heaven just had the Father and HS and not the eternal Word?


Christ’s actions have been described as the laying aside, while incarnated, of the _independent use of His divine attributes_. We find this is a consistent view with Scripture revealing Him using divine powers and displaying His glories on occasion (e.g., miracles, the Transfiguration), yet always in accord with the Father and the Holy Spirit (see Luke 4:14; John 5:19; 8:28; 14:10).

While Our Lord walked the earth, He limited the _independent use_ of any of His divine attributes. This in no way means God the Son divested Himself of His divinity and was not in possession of all the divine attributes. In other words, while Our Lord walked the earth, the Second Person of the Trinity was still omniscient, omnipresent, omnipotent, upholding all creation, and so forth.

Two useful items related to the incarnation can be found here:
http://www.desiringgod.org/articles/anhypostasis-what-kind-of-flesh-did-Jesus-take

http://www.desiringgod.org/articles/enhypostasis-what-kind-of-flesh-did-the-word-become

You will find them edifying.

Reactions: Amen 1


----------



## Ask Mr. Religion (Nov 29, 2017)

OPC'n said:


> As soon as Mary became pregnant, Jesus was incarcerated thus became in that split second of time the God-man.


Yes, He was eventually incarcerated, but before that He was incarnated. 

Sorry, I could not resist, sister.

Reactions: Funny 6


----------



## OPC'n (Nov 29, 2017)

Ask Mr. Religion said:


> Yes, He was eventually incarcerated, but before that He was incarnated.
> 
> Sorry, I could not resist, sister.



Hahahaha! Stupid autocorrector! That was super funny!

Reactions: Like 1 | Funny 3


----------



## py3ak (Nov 29, 2017)

No, the 2nd Person was always present in heaven (John 3:13). The humiliation of the incarnation did not consist in any loss or restriction of divinity, but in the addition of a human nature to the divine person. Accompanying this was a veiling of the glory of the God-man in the state of humiliation.

Reactions: Like 1


----------



## Gforce9 (Nov 30, 2017)

As Patrick and Rueben have elaborated, as well as Sinclair Ferguson, while growing in the womb, he was upholding the universe.

Reactions: Like 1


----------



## lynnie (Nov 30, 2017)

Thank you for the replies. And those were good links Mr R. The second one reminded me of that recent debate about peccable/impeccable. The way it describes what happened makes it impossible that the incarnated Jesus could potentially sin. 

I wont pretend I really understand the trinity and incarnation but this is very helpful. I guess my question sort of divided them up into three more than keeping them one. Thanks again.

Reactions: Like 2


----------



## Dachaser (Dec 1, 2017)

lynnie said:


> When Jesus incarnated in the womb of Mary, did heaven empty out for nine months of the second person of the Godhead? When Phil 2 says essentially he laid aside his power and glory and what he had in heaven with the father to come to earth and be a man, did the angels have nine months where all of a sudden heaven just had the Father and HS and not the eternal Word?
> 
> We were talking at midweek about the angels singing at his birth....were they waiting for it for nine months and maybe even missing him do you think? Or was he somehow in his deity still sort of there? If that is true, can you explain what that looked like better?
> 
> Thanks. This is probably basic but my husband thought about for a while and said to ask at the PB


God the Son left His heavenly abode, and was incarnated as the person of Jesus Christ, and so the Second Person of the Trinity became eternally the God/Man.


----------



## Gforce9 (Dec 1, 2017)

Dachaser said:


> God the Son left His heavenly abode, and was incarnated as the person of Jesus Christ, and so the Second Person of the Trinity became eternally the God/Man.



This language must be qualified in light of perichoresis......never was this in jeopardy in the incarnation....


----------



## Ask Mr. Religion (Dec 1, 2017)

Dachaser said:


> God the Son left His heavenly abode, and was incarnated as the person of Jesus Christ, and so the Second Person of the Trinity became eternally the God/Man.





Gforce9 said:


> This language must be qualified in light of perichoresis......never was this in jeopardy in the incarnation....



David,

Is it your view that the omnipresent God the Son is everywhere present with a glorified body since "the Second Person of the Trinity became eternally the God/Man"?


----------



## Dachaser (Dec 1, 2017)

Ask Mr. Religion said:


> David,
> 
> Is it your view that the omnipresent God the Son is everywhere present with a glorified body since "the Second Person of the Trinity became eternally the God/Man"?


I believe that Jesus was limited to being in a single location while here upon the earth due to Him being in the very form of a Human , but once he ascended and was re glorified with His full glory once again in heaven, that he would be seated at right hand of God, but also everywhere at the same time.


----------



## Ask Mr. Religion (Dec 1, 2017)

Dachaser said:


> I believe that Jesus was limited to being in a single location while here upon the earth due to Him being in the very form of a Human , but once he ascended and was re glorified with His full glory once again in heaven, that he would be seated at right hand of God, but also everywhere at the same time.


You are not directly answering my question, David.

Do you mean to say "_everywhere at the same time_" includes the glorified body of Our Lord? That this glorified body is spacially unlimited?

Do you understand that the divine nature, the Second Person of the Trinity, is not limited to the physical location of the presently existing glorified body of Jesus in Heaven?

Are you advocating that the divine attributes are somehow communicated (possessed by) to the human nature of Our Lord, contrary to "two natures, *without confusion*, without change, without division, without separation" (_Council of Chalcedon_)?


----------



## Dachaser (Dec 2, 2017)

Ask Mr. Religion said:


> You are not directly answering my question, David.
> 
> Do you mean to say "_everywhere at the same time_" includes the glorified body of Our Lord? That this glorified body is spacially unlimited?
> 
> ...


No, My understanding is that right now, Jesus is everywhere , as He is God, but he is also the glorified God/Man seated at the right hand of the Father.
Jesus was physically limited to just being where he was while her on Earth, but is no longer hindered by that after His resurrection and ascension.


----------



## Ask Mr. Religion (Dec 2, 2017)

Dachaser said:


> No, My understanding is that right now, Jesus is everywhere , as He is God, but he is also the glorified God/Man seated at the right hand of the Father.
> Jesus was physically limited to just being where he was while her on Earth, but is no longer hindered by that after His resurrection and ascension.


David,

If Jesus was physically limited to geography while walking the earth, where was the _Second Person of the Trinity_ at that time? Was that Person, God the Son, similarly geographically confined to Israel?

Do you see the issue here?


----------



## Dachaser (Dec 2, 2017)

Ask Mr. Religion said:


> David,
> 
> If Jesus was physically limited to geography while walking the earth, where was the _Second Person of the Trinity_ at that time? Was that Person, God the Son, similarly geographically confined to Israel?
> 
> Do you see the issue here?


Wasn't the Second person of the trinity incarnated as the man Jesus though?


----------



## Ask Mr. Religion (Dec 2, 2017)

Dachaser said:


> No, My understanding is that right now, Jesus is everywhere , as He is God, but he is also the glorified God/Man seated at the right hand of the Father.
> Jesus was physically limited to just being where he was while her on Earth, but is no longer hindered by that after His resurrection and ascension.





Ask Mr. Religion said:


> David,
> 
> If Jesus was physically limited to geography while walking the earth, where was the _Second Person of the Trinity_ at that time? Was that Person, God the Son, similarly geographically confined to Israel?
> 
> Do you see the issue here?





Dachaser said:


> Wasn't the Second person of the trinity incarnated as the man Jesus though?



David,

I am trying to be patient here. Please answer my previously asked questions directly:

1. If Jesus was physically limited to geography while walking the earth, where was the _Second Person of the Trinity_ at that time?

2. Was that Person, God the Son, similarly geographically confined to Israel?

Just answer them as best you are able without asking more questions. I will be happy to answer more questions once we establish some of the basics.


----------



## Dachaser (Dec 2, 2017)

I think that the very essense of the Second person of the Godhead became Human flesh and lived among us, but that all of the fullness of Him was not in Himself as Jesus, as God was still in heaven and here. How he can do that, I honestly do not know.


----------



## Gforce9 (Dec 2, 2017)

Dachaser said:


> I think that the very essense of the Second person of the Godhead became Human flesh and lived among us, but that all of the fullness of Him was not in Himself as Jesus, as God was still in heaven and here. How he can do that, I honestly do not know.



I think this is part of the problem: the "essence of the second person of the Godhead" didn't "become" anything. That immutable (unchageable) nature was united to a physical body, hypostatically, but it did not change in any way, shape or form.

Reactions: Like 1


----------



## Dachaser (Dec 2, 2017)

Gforce9 said:


> I think this is part of the problem: the "essence of the second person of the Godhead" didn't "become" anything. That immutable (unchageable) nature was united to a physical body, hypostatically, but it did not change in any way, shape or form.


What became and was created was the Human called Jesus, and within Him are both the natures of God and sinless humanity, correct?


----------



## Ask Mr. Religion (Dec 2, 2017)

Dachaser said:


> What became and was created was the Human called Jesus, and within Him are both the natures of God and sinless humanity, correct?


No, David.

The humanity of Jesus was not individuated. The Second Person of the Trinity took on a human _nature_, not a man named Jesus who would have existed had there been no incarnation. Had this been the case there would be two persons in the incarnate Christ, not one person.

Please take a look at the two links in my post above:
https://www.puritanboard.com/threads/question-re-incarnation.94389/#post-1151788

It is best not to just weigh in a thread until you have at least familiarized yourself with what has come earlier in the thread.

Reactions: Like 1


----------



## Dachaser (Dec 2, 2017)

Ask Mr. Religion said:


> No, David.
> 
> The humanity of Jesus was not individuated. The Second Person of the Trinity took on a human _nature_, not a man named Jesus who would have existed had there been no incarnation. Had this been the case there would be two persons in the incarnate Christ, not one person.
> 
> ...


So Jesus was direct result of God the Son incarnating Himself into Mary via the Holy Spirit, and thus would mean just one person, who would have both natures of God and perfect humanity, correct?


----------



## RamistThomist (Dec 2, 2017)

extra calvinisticum: The Logos was in the womb of the Virgin, but the divine nature was still upholding all things (thus, the extra). Part of the confusion is our natural tendency to view heaven as sort of a container notion of space.


----------



## Ask Mr. Religion (Dec 2, 2017)

Dachaser said:


> So Jesus was direct result of God the Son incarnating Himself into Mary via the Holy Spirit, and thus would mean just one person, who would have both natures of God and perfect humanity, correct?


You are getting there, David.

God the Son took upon Himself a human nature, not some skin suit, but a genuine human _nature_, not an individual human being (John, Bill, Henry, Jesus). This mystical union, _hypostatic union_, whereby the second subsistence of the Trinity assumed a human nature that cannot be separated, divided, mixed, or confused.

The union of the divine and human natures of Jesus Christ is not:

1. a denial that our Lord was truly God (*Ebionites, Elkasites, Arians*);
2. a dissimilar or different substance (_anomoios_) with the Father (*semi-Arianism*);
3. a denial that our Lord had a genuine human soul (*Apollinarians*);
4. a denial of a distinct subsistence in the Trinity (*Dynamic Monarchianism*);
5. God acting merely in the forms of the Son and Spirit (*Modalistic Monarchianism/Sabellianism/United Pentecostal Church*);
6. a mixture or change when the two natures were united (*Eutychianism/Monophysitism*);
7. *two distinct subsistences* (often called _persons_) (*Nestorianism*);
8. a denial of the true humanity of Christ (*docetism*);
9. a view that God the Son laid aside all or some of His divine attributes (*kenoticism*);
10. a view that there was a communication of the attributes between the divine and human natures (*Lutheranism, with respect to the Lord's Supper*); and
11. a view that our Lord existed independently as a human before God entered His body (*Adoptionism*).

Note that boldface portion at #7 above. Therein lies some of your misunderstandings that would have some claim you are advocating Nestorianism based upon what you have posted. Be careful, David.

The heresies in boldface above were denounced by The Chalcedonian Definition is one of the few statements that all of orthodox Christendom recognizes as the most faithful summary of the teachings of the Scriptures on the matter of the Incarnate Christ. The Chalcedonian Definition was the answer to the many heterodoxies identified above during the third century.

Reactions: Like 2 | Amen 1


----------



## RamistThomist (Dec 2, 2017)

the following books help

https://www.amazon.com/Holy-Trinity...&qid=1512260170&sr=8-1&keywords=robert+letham (I've read this book maybe 10 times)

https://www.amazon.com/Person-Chris...qid=1512260179&sr=8-1&keywords=donald+macleod

I almost linked some Oliver Crisp works, but all of the covers are 2C violations. And not only that, the art is awful.


----------



## Ask Mr. Religion (Dec 2, 2017)

BayouHuguenot said:


> the following books help
> 
> https://www.amazon.com/Holy-Trinity...&qid=1512260170&sr=8-1&keywords=robert+letham (I've read this book maybe 10 times)
> 
> ...


While I have read Letham, I was disappointed in his affinity for Eastern views over the West. We are all caught up in modalism and basically Nestorians unless we can affirm God has feelings like a man. There is cheese down his many tunnels in the book, but it will take work to get to them. Sigh.


----------



## RamistThomist (Dec 2, 2017)

Ask Mr. Religion said:


> While I have read Letham, I was disappointed in his affinity for Eastern views over the West. We are all caught up in modalism and basically Nestorians unless we can affirm God has feelings like a man. There is cheese down his many tunnels in the book, but it will take work to get to them. Sigh.



My problem is that he lists all of the West's problems from the East's perspective, but then when he critiques the East, he faults them from the West's perspectives.


----------



## timfost (Dec 2, 2017)

David,

Belgic 19 may be helpful here:

"...yet each nature retains its own distinct properties. As, then, the divine nature has always remained uncreated, without beginning of days or end of life, *filling heaven and earth*, so also has the human nature not lost its properties but remained a creature, having beginning of days, being a finite nature, and retaining all the properties of a real body. And though He has by His resurrection given immortality to the same, nevertheless He has not changed the reality of His human nature; forasmuch as our salvation and resurrection also depend on the reality of His body. *But these two natures are so closely united in one Person that they were not separated even by His death.* Therefore that which He, when dying, commended into the hands of His Father, was a real human spirit, departing from His body. *But in the meantime the divine nature always remained united with the human, even when He lay in the grave; and the Godhead did not cease to be in Him, any more than it did when He was an infant, though it did not so clearly manifest itself for a while.*"

Reactions: Like 1


----------



## Dachaser (Dec 5, 2017)

Ask Mr. Religion said:


> You are getting there, David.
> 
> God the Son took upon Himself a human nature, not some skin suit, but a genuine human _nature_, not an individual human being (John, Bill, Henry, Jesus). This mystical union, _hypostatic union_, whereby the second subsistence of the Trinity assumed a human nature that cannot be separated, divided, mixed, or confused.
> 
> ...


Thanks for you and all of those posters here helping me on this issue, as it can be very easy to not realize that we cna start discusiing Jesus in non biblical ways, such as when sometimes people make it sound like He was flipping back and forth in the Gospels when he acted from His humanity, and then acting out from his divinity, like 2 separate persons almost.


----------



## Dachaser (Dec 5, 2017)

timfost said:


> David,
> 
> Belgic 19 may be helpful here:
> 
> "...yet each nature retains its own distinct properties. As, then, the divine nature has always remained uncreated, without beginning of days or end of life, *filling heaven and earth*, so also has the human nature not lost its properties but remained a creature, having beginning of days, being a finite nature, and retaining all the properties of a real body. And though He has by His resurrection given immortality to the same, nevertheless He has not changed the reality of His human nature; forasmuch as our salvation and resurrection also depend on the reality of His body. *But these two natures are so closely united in one Person that they were not separated even by His death.* Therefore that which He, when dying, commended into the hands of His Father, was a real human spirit, departing from His body. *But in the meantime the divine nature always remained united with the human, even when He lay in the grave; and the Godhead did not cease to be in Him, any more than it did when He was an infant, though it did not so clearly manifest itself for a while.*"


Jesus always acts as a single person, as he is both fully God and fully man, so not just switching back and forth in His natures, correct?


----------



## timfost (Dec 5, 2017)

Dachaser said:


> Jesus always acts as a single person, as he is both fully God and fully man, so not just switching back and forth in His natures, correct?



I'm not sure what you mean by "acts as a single person." He is a single person with two natures. Both natures have *distinct* properties.

When He acts, we might see this single action as belonging primarily to one nature or the other. However, it does not follow that He is "switching back and forth" as if He cannot assume both natures simultaneously.


----------



## Dachaser (Dec 5, 2017)

timfost said:


> I'm not sure what you mean by "acts as a single person." He is a single person with two natures. Both natures have *distinct* properties.
> 
> When He acts, we might see this single action as belonging primarily to one nature or the other. However, it does not follow that He is "switching back and forth" as if He cannot assume both natures simultaneously.


Jesus is always both natures within His One person, correct?


----------



## RamistThomist (Dec 5, 2017)

Dachaser said:


> Jesus is always both natures within His One person, correct?



His one person has both natures. Take the two minds of Christ. The divine mind contains the human mind with an asymmetrical accessing relation.


----------



## timfost (Dec 5, 2017)

Dachaser said:


> Jesus is always both natures within His One person, correct?



Always after the incarnation. He has both natures "without confusion." Confusion can lead to ubiquitarianism, among other things.


----------



## Dachaser (Dec 5, 2017)

timfost said:


> Always after the incarnation. He has both natures "without confusion." Confusion can lead to ubiquitarianism, among other things.


No co mingling, no sharing, but still One Person, correct?


----------



## timfost (Dec 5, 2017)

Dachaser said:


> No co mingling, no sharing, but still One Person, correct?



Would you like some reading recommendations on the subject?


----------



## RamistThomist (Dec 5, 2017)

https://www.amazon.com/Person-Chris...qid=1512516303&sr=8-1&keywords=donald+macleod
https://www.amazon.com/Word-Enflesh...=sr_1_4?s=books&ie=UTF8&qid=1512516347&sr=1-4 (2nd Commandment Violation, but the content is outstanding)

https://www.amazon.com/Monotheism-P...TO8_1_2?s=books&ie=UTF8&qid=1512516388&sr=1-2


----------



## JimmyH (Dec 5, 2017)

timfost said:


> Would you like some reading recommendations on the subject?


I would recommend The Westminster Confession of Faith For Study Classes by G.I. Williamson. I just finished re-reading chapter 8, Of Christ the Mediator. Pastor Williamson explains the meaning of the Confessions clearly yet succinctly 
That said, I confess that our Lord having a distinct divine nature, and a distinct human nature is difficult to for me to completely comprehend. 


> WFC Chapter 8:2. The Son of God, the second person of the Trinity, being very and eternal God, of one substance and equal with the Father, did, when the fullness of time was come, take upon Him man's nature, with all the essential properties, and common infirmities thereof, yet without sin; being conceived by the power of the Holy Ghost, in the womb of the virgin Mary, of her substance. *So that two whole, perfect, and distinct natures, the Godhead and the manhood, were inseparably joined together in one person, without conversion, composition, or confusion. Which person is very God, and very man, yet one Christ, the only Mediator between God and man*.


Which is not at all to say that I don't fully believe it, only that I don't fully understand it. That brings to mind this quote from MLJ in his God the Father, God the Son, God the Holy Spirit (page 37) ;


> The first thing we must do, in view of all that we have seen together, is agree to grasp the Bible as our full and final authority in all matters of revelation. Having seen that we cannot get anywhere without the Bible, then the obvious thing to do is to say, 'Very well, I accept the Bible. I don't know anything apart from it. I have no knowledge of God apart from what the Bible tells me. I may theorize, and other people may do the same thing, but I really do not know anything apart from what I find in this book.' So the first decision we must make is that we are going to be, as John Wesley put it, men and women 'of one book'. Here is my only source, my only authority.
> 
> But I want to underline this and even emphasise it still further. I must submit myself entirely to the Bible, and that will mean certain things. *First, I start by telling myself that when I come to read the Bible and its doctrines, I am entering into a realm that is beyond the reach of my understanding. By definition, I shall be dealing with things that are beyond my power to grasp. The very idea of revelation , in and of itself, I suggest to you, must carry that implication. We are going to try and know God and study the doctrines concerning Him, and it must be the case that these truths are beyond our understanding. If I could understand God, I would be equal with Him. If my mind were able to apprehend and to span the truth about God then it would mean that my mind is equal to the mind of God, and that, of course, is altogether wrong.
> For instance, in our next lecture we hope to be dealing with the doctrine of the Trinity. Now there by definition is a doctrine that no one can possibly understand, but let us agree to say that before we come to the doctrine. Let nobody think, however, that this means committing intellectual suicide when we take up the Bible. It simply means that we recognize that there is a limit to reason. We agree with the great French mathematician and philosopher, Pascal, that the supreme achievement of reason is to teach that there is an end and limit to reason. Our reason takes us so far and then we enter into the realm of revelation, where God is graciously pleased to manifest Himself to us.*
> But now I am anxious to emphasise the second point. It means that we must accept truths where we cannot understand them and fully explain them. Not only must we agree that we cannot, of necessity, understand everything, but also, when we come up against particular doctrines and truths, we must accept them if they are in he Bible, irrespective of the fact that we can or cannot understand them. Now I rather like to think of faith in that way. I am not sure but that the best definition of faith we can ever arrive at is this: faith means that men and women decide quite deliberately to be content only with what they have in the Bible, and that they stop asking questions."

Reactions: Like 1


----------



## RamistThomist (Dec 5, 2017)

Jesus has all of the essential properties of what it means to be man. He has all of the essential properties of what it means to be God. I discuss it here.
https://puritanboard.com/threads/the-logic-of-god-incarnate-morris.94211/

***We aren’t saying that Jesus held to two undefined natures, but rather two natural kinds, or kind-nature. Natural kind: a shareable set of properties (39ff). Jesus had all the kind-essential properties of both humanity and divinity (40). ***


----------



## Dachaser (Dec 6, 2017)

JimmyH said:


> I would recommend The Westminster Confession of Faith For Study Classes by G.I. Williamson. I just finished re-reading chapter 8, Of Christ the Mediator. Pastor Williamson explains the meaning of the Confessions clearly yet succinctly
> That said, I confess that our Lord having a distinct divine nature, and a distinct human nature is difficult to for me to completely comprehend.
> 
> Which is not at all to say that I don't fully believe it, only that I don't fully understand it. That brings to mind this quote from MLJ in his God the Father, God the Son, God the Holy Spirit (page 37) ;


This is the same situation for me, as having read through various Systematic theologies, still am fuzzy on fully understanding this issue.


----------



## Dachaser (Dec 6, 2017)

BayouHuguenot said:


> Jesus has all of the essential properties of what it means to be man. He has all of the essential properties of what it means to be God. I discuss it here.
> https://puritanboard.com/threads/the-logic-of-god-incarnate-morris.94211/
> 
> ***We aren’t saying that Jesus held to two undefined natures, but rather two natural kinds, or kind-nature. Natural kind: a shareable set of properties (39ff). Jesus had all the kind-essential properties of both humanity and divinity (40). ***


His humanity would be the same as Adam was when created morally perfect, correct?


----------



## RamistThomist (Dec 6, 2017)

Dachaser said:


> His humanity would be the same as Adam was when created morally perfect, correct?



He wouldn't have suffered from a vitiated moral nature which would have come from original sin, no. Adam wasn't perfect, though, since he was mutable.


----------



## timfost (Dec 6, 2017)

BayouHuguenot said:


> Adam wasn't perfect, though, since he was mutable.



For my sake: how do you distinguish between "very good" and perfect? Does mutable = flawed?

What reading would you recommend on the subject?

Thanks!


----------



## RamistThomist (Dec 6, 2017)

timfost said:


> For my sake: how do you distinguish between "very good" and perfect? Does mutable = flawed?
> 
> What reading would you recommend on the subject?
> 
> Thanks!



If Adam were perfect he wouldn't have fallen. Perfect also implies completion of a goal, which precisely wasn't the case with Adam.

The best stuff to read:
WGT Shedd, _Dogmatic Theology_. Get the P&R Alan Gomes edition. The whole book is a feast but read the book on Christology.
Crisp, Oliver. _An American Augustinian_. Crisp analyses some of Shedd's unique conclusions. While I demur at times, Crisp shows you how to think through these issues.
Crisp. _The Word Enfleshed_. Crisp surveys the basic Christological problems.
Crisp. _Divinity and Humanity _and _God Incarnate_. Ignore the hideously awful art work.

Reactions: Like 1


----------



## Dachaser (Dec 6, 2017)

BayouHuguenot said:


> He wouldn't have suffered from a vitiated moral nature which would have come from original sin, no. Adam wasn't perfect, though, since he was mutable.


Adam when created did not have a sin nature, as his nature fell in the fall, correct?


----------



## RamistThomist (Dec 6, 2017)

Dachaser said:


> Adam when created did not have a sin nature, as his nature fell in the fall, correct?



Adam was created able to sin and able not to sin.


----------



## timfost (Dec 6, 2017)

BayouHuguenot said:


> If Adam were perfect he wouldn't have fallen. Perfect also implies completion of a goal, which precisely wasn't the case with Adam.
> 
> The best stuff to read:
> WGT Shedd, _Dogmatic Theology_. Get the P&R Alan Gomes edition. The whole book is a feast but read the book on Christology.
> ...



Thanks for the book recommendations. I really appreciate it.

Do you know if those who believe that Christ was peccable make this distinction between good and perfect in this way or does the doctrine of Christ's impeccability necessitate this distinction?

Admittedly, this is a new subject for me, so your reading recommendations are helpful.

Thanks again!


----------



## earl40 (Dec 7, 2017)

timfost said:


> Do you know if those who believe that Christ was peccable make this distinction between good and perfect in this way or does the doctrine of Christ's impeccability necessitate this distinction?



If Jesus ever contemplated sinning (the logical consequence of not being impeccable) He would not be our good and perfect savior.


----------



## RamistThomist (Dec 7, 2017)

timfost said:


> Thanks for the book recommendations. I really appreciate it.
> 
> Do you know if those who believe that Christ was peccable make this distinction between good and perfect in this way or does the doctrine of Christ's impeccability necessitate this distinction?
> 
> ...



I don't know if they make the distinction. Shedd is famous for his defense of impeccability.


----------



## Ask Mr. Religion (Dec 7, 2017)

Dachaser said:


> Adam when created did not have a sin nature, as his nature fell in the fall, correct?


A _person _fell in the Garden, not a _nature_. 

Adam, in his original state of moral rectitude, was able to not sin (_posse non peccare_) and able to sin (_posse peccare_). He did sin. He fell. Now all _in Adam_ are not able to not sin (_non posse non peccare_). The regenerated elect are able to not sin (_posse non peccare)_. In glory we will unable to sin (_non posse peccare_).

Reactions: Like 1


----------



## Dachaser (Dec 7, 2017)

Ask Mr. Religion said:


> A _person _fell in the Garden, not a _nature_.
> 
> Adam, in his original state of moral rectitude, was able to not sin (_posse non peccare_) and able to sin (_posse peccare_). He did sin. He fell. Now all _in Adam_ are not able to not sin (_non posse non peccare_). The regenerated elect are able to not sin (_posse non peccare)_. In glory we will unable to sin (_non posse peccare_).


So Jesus and Adam were same in not being able to sin, but the Lord was also not able to sin then, correct?
Before the fall, they would be same as each other in their humanity?


----------



## Dachaser (Dec 7, 2017)

earl40 said:


> If Jesus ever contemplated sinning (the logical consequence of not being impeccable) He would not be our good and perfect savior.


He had temptations the same as we do, but there was nothing in Him to respond that and commit sin.


----------



## Dachaser (Dec 7, 2017)

timfost said:


> Thanks for the book recommendations. I really appreciate it.
> 
> Do you know if those who believe that Christ was peccable make this distinction between good and perfect in this way or does the doctrine of Christ's impeccability necessitate this distinction?
> 
> ...


This issue of the two natures of Jesus still not totally nailed down yet by me, but am working towards it.


----------



## RamistThomist (Dec 7, 2017)

Dachaser said:


> This issue of the two natures of Jesus still not totally nailed down yet by me, but am working towards it.



I would spend some time working through a good systematic theology such as WGT Shedd's. Also pick up Macleod's book _Person of Christ_. While I haven't read Millard Erickson's works on Christ, he's probably good, too.


----------



## Dachaser (Dec 7, 2017)

BayouHuguenot said:


> I would spend some time working through a good systematic theology such as WGT Shedd's. Also pick up Macleod's book _Person of Christ_. While I haven't read Millard Erickson's works on Christ, he's probably good, too.


Would someone like Berkhof be good to read on this?


----------



## RamistThomist (Dec 7, 2017)

Dachaser said:


> Would someone like Berkhof be good to read on this?



Yes. He doesn't go into as much detail as Shedd. Shedd works through problems better than Berkhof, though Berkhof gets to the general point faster.


----------



## Dachaser (Dec 7, 2017)

BayouHuguenot said:


> Yes. He doesn't go into as much detail as Shedd. Shedd works through problems better than Berkhof, though Berkhof gets to the general point faster.


I remember that Erickson had some work up on this in his ST, but think that he also had a separate book just for the Trinity Themselves.


----------



## Ask Mr. Religion (Dec 7, 2017)

Dachaser said:


> So Jesus and Adam were same in not being able to sin, but the Lord was also not able to sin then, correct?
> Before the fall, they would be same as each other in their humanity?


David,

Short answer, yes, the human nature assumed by Our Lord was as pure and as spotless as was Adam's before the fall.

Let's review a few vital points.

Sin is not essential to the human nature _qua_ nature (_qua _- in the capacity of, as being). Sin is not some ontological entity, existing by itself. Sin relates to a law that has not been obeyed. Sin therefore is a _moral _act. The corruption of a Person is not a _material_ corruption, it is a moral corruption.

Our Lord Jesus Christ was not two _somethings_ existing side-by-side in one person. Jesus Christ was a divine person, a person Who assumed a human nature. That human nature so taken up was consecrated (kept pure and spotless) and specifically created by the miracle and agency of God the Holy Spirit (Luke 1:35). That human nature was an impersonal human nature.

Calvin is instructive here (emphasis mine): 
"Christ was not free of all taint, merely because he was born of a woman unconnected with a man, but because he was sanctified by the Spirit, so that the generation was pure and spotless, such as it would have been before Adam’s fall." (_Inst_. 2.13.4).

If you wrongly try to abstract the human nature of Jesus away from God incarnate you ignore the plain fact that _persons _sin, not _natures_. 

The human _nature_ of Jesus Christ only existed in union with the divine Person, the Second Person of the Trinity. Given this union, there is no possibility that the _Person_, Jesus Christ, could sin. Why? His divine _nature_—not some _donum superadditum _(super added gift of grace)—made the possibility of sin impossible.

Reactions: Like 3


----------



## lynnie (Dec 8, 2017)

Hey David-

I think you ask good questions. And the replies here are tremendous. The quote from Lloyd-Jones was comforting.

Good luck with Berkhof. I pulled it out few nights ago with the goal of really understanding the incarnation. I was especially wondering about the human soul of Jesus. By the time I was done with the chapter on the Unipersonality of Christ I was ready to throw the book across the room and give up on theology altogether. I didn't even look at this thread the last couple days. 

I was ranting to my husband, who normally engages with me on anything theological, and dives into Greek or Hebrew or commentaries as needed. All he did was start crooning some old song about how we will understand it better bye and bye, with a grin on his face. I was really annoyed until I remembered that he knew a guy in Seminary who had a temporary nervous breakdown starting with trying to figure out the trinity, so I'll cut him some slack. 

Berkhof does say this in this chapter:

_The doctrine of the two natures in one person transcends human reason. It is the expression of a supersensible reality, and of an incomprehensible mystery, which has no analogy on the life of man as we know it, and finds no support in human reason, and therefore can only be accepted by faith on the authority of the Word of God. For that reason it is doubly necessary to pay close attention to the teachings of scripture on this point. _


----------



## lynnie (Dec 8, 2017)

https://www.puritanboard.com/threads/definition-of-person-as-it-relates-to-the-trinity.85593/

I found this thread from almost 3 years ago looking up the word "person", ie, what is a person when we talk about God in three persons. It has some posts that overlap with this subject, in case anybody is interested.


----------



## Dachaser (Dec 8, 2017)

Ask Mr. Religion said:


> David,
> 
> Short answer, yes, the human nature assumed by Our Lord was as pure and as spotless as was Adam's before the fall.
> 
> ...


What I am understanding here is that before the incarnation, there was God the Son period, and when he assumed on humanity and became a man as Jesus of Nazareth. and from that time forward, one person who is forever now both fully God and fully man?


----------



## Dachaser (Dec 8, 2017)

lynnie said:


> Hey David-
> 
> I think you ask good questions. And the replies here are tremendous. The quote from Lloyd-Jones was comforting.
> 
> ...


This is to me a really mystifying concept to be able to fully grasp. Glad to know not alone in this.


----------



## RamistThomist (Dec 8, 2017)

Dachaser said:


> What I am understanding here is that before the incarnation, there was God the Son period, and when he assumed on humanity and became a man as Jesus of Nazareth. and from that time forward, one person who is forever now both fully God and fully man?



You're getting there. The most precise way to say it is that the Person of God the Son assumed a human nature alongside his divine nature. Thus the catechism, "who was and continueth to be, both God and man, in two distinct natures, and one person, forever.

Reactions: Like 1


----------



## Ask Mr. Religion (Dec 8, 2017)

Dachaser said:


> What I am understanding here is that before the incarnation, there was God the Son period, and when he assumed on humanity and became a man as Jesus of Nazareth. and from that time forward, one person who is forever now both fully God and fully man?


Yes, that Person, Jesus Christ, "continueth to be, God and man in two distinct natures, and one person, for ever." WLC #7

Reactions: Like 3


----------



## timfost (Dec 9, 2017)

David,

I love the way Heidelberg (indirectly) counters ubiquitarianism while comforting us with the implications of Christ's two natures:

"47. But is not Christ with us even unto the end of the world, as He has promised?1 

Christ is true man and true God. According to His human nature He is now not on earth,2 but according to His Godhead, majesty, grace, and Spirit, He is at no time absent from us.3

[1] Matt. 28:20. [2] Matt. 26:11; Jn. 16:28; 17:11. [3] Jn. 14:17–18; 16:13; Eph. 4:8; Matt. 18:20; *Heb. 8:4. 

48. But are not, in this way, the two natures in Christ separated from one another, if the manhood is not wherever the Godhead is? 

Not at all, for since the Godhead is incomprehensible and everywhere present,1 it must follow that the same is not limited with the human nature He assumed, and yet remains personally united to it.2 

[1] Acts 7:49; Jer. 23:24. [2] Col. 2:9; Jn. 3:13; 11:15; Matt. 28:6; *Jn. 1:48."


----------

