Answering Objections to the Incarnation

[37818]

The person of the Son is not immutable, inasmuch as he took upon himself a mutable human nature which changed in many ways. But his divine nature was not changed by any of that. Where did you get the idea that the Son eternally had two natures?

Now you just stated that the person of the Son is not immutable. God is immutable. So are you arguing that the person of the Son is NOT God? Or are you arguing that the person of the Son is not the same person as the Son? Can you clear this up for me what you mean here?

[RBerman]

Now you just stated that the person of the Son is not immutable. God is immutable. So are you arguing that the persson of the Son is NOT God?

"God" does not have one-to-one identity with "the person of the Son." That is, there are things inherent in the Son that are not inherent in the divine nature in general. For instance, the Son has the property "begotten of the Father." But that's not a property of the divine nature in general; otherwise the Father would also be "begotten of the Father" which is sheer nonsense. Similarly, it is not the case that because Christ suffered on the cross, and Christ is God, and the Father is also God, that therefore "The Father suffered on the cross." This doctrine of "patripassianism" (Greek for "father-suffering") was held by the Sabellian modalists and was rightly condemned by the church in the third century.

Or are you arguing that the person of the Son is not the same persons as the Son? Can you clear this up for me what you mean here?

I don't know what I would mean if I argued that "the person of the Son is not the same persons as the Son." So no, I guess I'm not arguing that. But I do argue that the Son is not the same person as the Father or the Spirit. They are three persons who each fully possess the one divine nature.but are distinguished by the way (some would use the term "mode") in which they possess that nature. The Father possesses it inherently. The Son possesses it by begetting. The Spirit possesses it by procession. If you need a good book on this topic, I commend to you Gerald Bray's "The Doctrine of God."

[siliconwafer]

Omnipotence, omnipresence & omniscience are most definitely philosophical ideas that can't be proved or observed directly. The Bible may indicate that God, within mankinds limited comprehension, has those attributes, but such are not directly observable or provable! Thats the problem! The Bible also indicates that when it is God's will he does not have omnipotence, omnipresence & omniscience - I must presume you reject the doctrine of the Trinity and that the Son was incarnated as man...or that God covers our sins...and several hundred other biblical propositions...

The divine nature always has these attributes: omnipotence, omnipresence, and omniscience. God will never cease to have those attributes. Jesus is both God and man. His divine nature has those attributes, but his human nature does not have those attributes.

I wholeheartedly believe in the doctrines of the Trinity and the Incarnation.

[apostoli]

The divine nature always has these attributes: omnipotence, omnipresence, and omniscience. God will never cease to have those attributes. Jesus is both God and man. His divine nature has those attributes, but his human nature does not have those attributes.

I wholeheartedly believe in the doctrines of the Trinity and the Incarnation.

Suggest you look up the 3rd century father Novatian, and his work "De Trinitate " (c.250). Your premises support "oneness theology " which has never, and I repeat never, has been accepted by any orthodox Christian church (RCC, EOC, ROC, OOC, CoE, Lutherism, Calvinism etc = 99.99999999% of Christianity). What you are assuming is in total accord with the INC, Christadelphians, oneness pentecostals and all other unitarian churches that deny the pre-existence of the Son (the Judaizers that A.Paul warns us against).... Whether such is your intention or not is anyone's guess, but it is obvious you do not support Trinitarianism...

[siliconwafer]

Suggest you look up the 3rd century father Novatian, and his work "De Trinitate " (c.250). Your premises support "oneness theology " which has never, and I repeat never, has been accepted by any orthodox Christian church (RCC, EOC, ROC, OOC, CoE, Lutherism, Calvinism etc = 99.99999999% of Christianity). What you are assuming is in total accord with the INC, Christadelphians, oneness pentecostals and all other unitarian churches that deny the pre-existence of the Son (the Judaizers that A.Paul warns us against).... Whether such is your intention or not is anyone's guess, but it is obvious you do not support Trinitarianism...

Where do you get the idea that I deny the pre-existence of the Son? I affirm the pre-existence of the Son and Trinitarianism. There is only one God and there are three persons who are God.

[apostoli]

Where do you get the idea that I deny the pre-existence of the Son?

From your rhetoric!

I affirm the pre-existence of the Son and Trinitarianism.

Well you definitely fooled me!

There is only one God and there are three persons who are God.

Something of a contradiction in terms. Trinitarianism has specific terminology that avoids the confusion...

[37818]

. . . the Son has the property "begotten of the Father." . . . .

I agree that the Son is the only-begotten of the Father, But to say that means the Son was "begotten of the Father" in order to be the only-begotten Son, that is another issue. That would negate the second person of the Trinity from always being the Son. I know most Christians have it in their head that is somehow true. "begotten of the Father before all worlds.". But there is NO biblical bases to suppose "begotten of the Father" in order to become the only-begotten Son IF the Son was eternally the Son.

There are some trinitarians which while they hold the God has always been three Persons, do not hold that the second Person was always the Son. Dr Walter Martin was one such person.

[RBerman]

I agree that the Son is the only-begotten of the Father, But to say that means the Son was "begotten of the Father" in order to be the only-begotten Son, that is another issue. That would negate the second person of the Trinity from always being the Son. I know most Christians have it in their head that is somehow true. "begotten of the Father before all worlds.". But there is NO biblical bases to suppose "begotten of the Father" in order to become the only-begotten Son IF the Son was eternally the Son. There are some trinitarians which while they hold the God has always been three Persons, do not hold that the second Person was always the Son. Dr Walter Martin was one such person.

Certainly you'll find all sorts of people who have denied this throughout history Why do you say there's no Biblical basis, though? "Begotten" for Jesus does not describe a process, but rather an eternal relationship in which the second person's nature derives from the first, just as a human child's nature derives from that of his parents. That's why the word "begotten" is used even though in Jesus case the begetting is eternal rather than having started at a particular point in time.

[37818]

Certainly you'll find all sorts of people who have denied this throughout history Why do you say there's no Biblical basis, though? "Begotten" for Jesus does not describe a process, but rather an eternal relationship in which the second person's nature derives from the first, just as a human child's nature derives from that of his parents. That's why the word "begotten" is used even though in Jesus case the begetting is eternal rather than having started at a particular point in time.

The term "begotten" used by itself has a connotation of an origin. The term "only begotten" is one of relationship, not necessarily of an origin. The statement "begotten of the Father before all worlds" or "eternally begotten of the Father" carries a sense of origin, and is not biblical. I contend that the "only begotten" was not begotten nor made, but was always the only begotten. Truly eternally the Son of God.

[RBerman]

The term "begotten" used by itself has a connotation of an origin. The term "only begotten" is one of relationship, not necessarily of an origin. The statement "begotten of the Father before all worlds" or "eternally begotten of the Father" carries a sense of origin, and is not biblical. I contend that the "only begotten" was not begotten nor made, but was always the only begotten. Truly eternally the Son of God.

Words are informed by their context. "Begotten" does imply origin when used of men. Men have an origin, and "begotten" tells what that origin is. It means something different when used of the eternal Son of God. This is one of the ways in which his Sonship differs from ours, but God has seen fit to reveal himself using terms like "Father" and "Son."

[siliconwafer]

Words are informed by their context. "Begotten" does imply origin when used of men. Men have an origin, and "begotten" tells what that origin is. It means something different when used of the eternal Son of God. This is one of the ways in which his Sonship differs from ours, but God has seen fit to reveal himself using terms like "Father" and "Son."

I have heard that the Greek word translated as "only begotten" means "unique" or "one of a kind." This Greek word is "monogenes."

Why is Jesus called the Son of God? Jesus is called the Son of God because He has the same nature or essence as God.

[siliconwafer]

From your rhetoric!

Well you definitely fooled me!

Something of a contradiction in terms. Trinitarianism has specific terminology that avoids the confusion...

God is one in being and three in person. Moreover, there is a distinction between a being and a person. Saying that there is only one God does not mean that there is only one person who is God. This means that there is only one being who is God. Saying that there are three persons who are God does not mean that there are three Gods. It is important to keep in mind the distinction between being and person.

[RBerman]

I have heard that the Greek word translated as "only begotten" means "unique" or "one of a kind." This Greek word is "monogenes."

That is correct. The doctrine of Jesus' begotten-ness is not based on John 3:16.

Why is Jesus called the Son of God? Jesus is called the Son of God because He has the same nature or essence as God.

That is true. And because within the Trinity, he derives from the Father, rather than vice versa.

[37818]

Words are informed by their context. "Begotten" does imply origin when used of men. Men have an origin, and "begotten" tells what that origin is. It means something different when used of the eternal Son of God. This is one of the ways in which his Sonship differs from ours, but God has seen fit to reveal himself using terms like "Father" and "Son."

No disagreement that "God has seen fit to reveal himself using terms like "Father" and "Son." " So that is not at issue. No where in holy scripture is the term "begotten" used to refer to Christ's preexistence. The Son is co-eternal with the Father and therefore not "begotten" to become the Son. God has no beginning. So it stands to reason the trinity Father, Son and Holy Spirit has no beginning, being they are the One God.

Psalm 90:2,

. . . from everlasting to everlasting, thou art God.

What is at issue, God is immutable. The Son of God is God. (John 1:3, Genesis 1:1.) Immutability negates change in any way. Yet the Son was changed by being incarnated. This is our discussion.

[RBerman]

No disagreement that "God has seen fit to reveal himself using terms like "Father" and "Son." " So that is not at issue. No where in holy scripture is the term "begotten" used to refer to Christ's preexistence. The Son is co-eternal with the Father and therefore not "begotten" to become the Son. God has no beginning. So it stands to reason the trinity Father, Son and Holy Spirit has no beginning, being they are the One God.

The thing that makes a son a son is his begetting by his father. That's what son means, that's what father means, and that's what begetting means. "Begetting" establishes the father/son relationship between two parties. So if "The Son is co-eternal with the Father" then he is necessarily "begotten in eternity," by definition. The Nicene Creed phrases it "begotten before all worlds"; I don't have a problem with "eternally begotten" to mean the same thing, though Apostoli does. So to deny his eternal begottenness is to deny his eternal sonship, because they mean the same thing.

Psalm 90:2,

. . . from everlasting to everlasting, thou art God.

What is at issue, God is immutable. The Son of God is God. (John 1:3, Genesis 1:1.) Immutability negates change in any way. Yet the Son was changed by being incarnated. This is our discussion.

The ancient solution is the best one here: The divine nature of the second person is immutable and was not changed when the second person himself changed by becoming incarnate, taking on a human nature in addition to the divine nature he already possessed.