Question re. Incarnation

Status
Not open for further replies.
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."
Click to expand...
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?
 
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?
Click to expand...

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.
 
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.
Click to expand...
Jesus is always both natures within His One person, correct?
 
timfost said:
Would you like some reading recommendations on the subject?
Click to expand...
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.
Click to expand...
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."
Click to expand...
 
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). ***
 
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) ;
Click to expand...
This is the same situation for me, as having read through various Systematic theologies, still am fuzzy on fully understanding this issue.
 
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). ***
Click to expand...
His humanity would be the same as Adam was when created morally perfect, correct?
 
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!
Click to expand...

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.
 
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.
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.
Click to expand...

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!
 
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?
Click to expand...

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

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

Thanks again!
Click to expand...

I don't know if they make the distinction. Shedd is famous for his defense of impeccability.
 
Dachaser said:
Adam when created did not have a sin nature, as his nature fell in the fall, correct?
Click to expand...
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).
 
Last edited:
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).
Click to expand...
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?
 
earl40 said:
If Jesus ever contemplated sinning (the logical consequence of not being impeccable) He would not be our good and perfect savior. :)
Click to expand...
He had temptations the same as we do, but there was nothing in Him to respond that and commit sin.
 
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?

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

Thanks again!
Click to expand...
This issue of the two natures of Jesus still not totally nailed down yet by me, but am working towards it.
 
Dachaser said:
This issue of the two natures of Jesus still not totally nailed down yet by me, but am working towards it.
Click to expand...

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.
 
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.
Click to expand...
Would someone like Berkhof be good to read on this?
 
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.
Click to expand...
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.
 
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?
Click to expand...
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.
 
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.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.

Similar threads

JM
  • Locked
The Incarnation
Replies
0
Views
2K
JM
JM
C
  • Locked
Christ's Incarnation
Replies
4
Views
2K
saintandsinner77
S
KMK
  • Locked
Shedd on the Incarnation
Replies
3
Views
2K
Peairtach
Peairtach
C. Matthew McMahon
  • Locked
Duns Scotus and the Incarnation
Replies
20
Views
4K
Contra_Mundum
Contra_Mundum
R
  • Locked
Question [re: Common Grace]
Replies
17
Views
5K
Confessor
Confessor
Back
Top