From: sing <>
Date: December 14, 2007 11:13:07 PM GMT+07:00
To: Old School is Best School
Subject: The modus of his Divine Subsistence Mat 1:18
Dear brethren,
I have been reading and following this subject with great interest. My understanding on this subject is minimal. I hope you don't mind me expressing my simple understanding.
A brother wrote: (I lost who is writing what... I receive in daily digest mode.)
**I hasten to add that in the Person of Christ we always have the two natures, divine and human. I do not think we can ever separate the two natures in Christ. As long as there has been the Person of Christ, there have been the two natures in that one person.**
I think it is a given the two-natured Person of Christ has a definite beginning in time, i.e. when the eternal Word, the eternally one-natured divine Being, WAS MADE flesh. The Word already WAS in the beginning but this eternal Word was made flesh at a specific point in time and dwelt among men, John 1:1,14.
The personal name of this two-natured Person is Jesus. The official title of this dual-natured Person is Christ. The Son of God is that two-natured Person, and has a definite beginning in time. Lu 1:35 "And the angel answered and said unto her, The Holy Ghost shall come upon thee, and the power of the Highest shall overshadow thee: therefore also that holy thing which shall be born of thee shall be called the Son of God."
Another brother wrote:
**Dear Brother, the problem I have with this statement would be that his Humanity would be ETERNAL as The father, Son and Holy Ghost. You have a finite humanity being eternal. I do believe that he was set up to be the God man, and mediator of His people and this was from eternity. I see many of the saying of Christ in His humanity as being spoken from his person, of the Eternal Son of God as though he existed before time in my option. I see the Everlasting Covenant being made with the Eternal Son of God in his person, being setup as the God-Man Mediator form eternity, does this make sense to you?**
As indicated in my comment above, God has no eternal Son. God began to have a Son when the Eternal Word was made flesh. The Son of God did not exist until the eternal Word was made flesh, and born of a virgin. Jesus Christ is the Eternal Word made flesh by the power of the Highest, THEREFORE He is called the Son of God.
The term 'son of God' is not used at all until the incarnation of the eternal Word. The term 'son of God' occurs once in the OT in Dan 3:25. That expresses Nebuchadnezzar's impression of what he saw in the furnace. Later, in his sober imperial decree, explaining what had really happened, he said, "Blessed be the God of Shadrach, Meshach, and Abednego, who hath sent his angel, and delivered his servants that trusted in him, and have changed the king's word, and yielded their bodies, that they might not serve nor worship any god, except their own God."
The Son of God speaks naturally of his existence PRIOR to His incarnation... even His existence as the Eternal Word. He could ONLY speak of His eternal existence from the standpoint of being the Son of God, the standpoint of the Eternal Word having been made flesh, already born of a virgin.
But He was NOT speaking of His eternal Sonship, even though He was speaking of His eternal Being and divinity, He eternal oneness with God... whom He addresses as Father because He is speaking from the standpoint of the Eternal Word HAVING BEEN made flesh, having been begotten of the Father. He can't possibly be speaking of His eternal Sonship, because it is obvious that His Sonship has a beginning in time, i.e. at the point when the Eternal Word was made flesh by the power of the Highest - according to the Everlasting Covenant between the three divine Persons of the Godhead.
In the Everlasting Covenant, the eternal Word had agreed to be the Christ (official title of His office as Redeemer) to the people God had chosen and given to Him. According to the Everlasting Covenant of redemption, at the appointed time, the Eternal Word would be made flesh, a body would be given to the eternal Word by the Holy Spirit, and the Son of God would be born, the only begotten of God, Heb 10:5.
It is like a man saying, "When my wife was 8 years old, she had a wonderful experience of grace!" He is stating a truth even though the woman became his wife many years later at the wedding. His wife did not begin to exist at the wedding! The being of his wife existed long before she was given the grand title 'Wifey.' He speaks of the 8-year old girl as his wife, even though she was never his wife until she was sweet 19. Poor illustration but is sufficient to convey the point.
That's my present understanding.
I will just keeping reading the excellent thoughts of you veterans in the faith.
sing in the south seas
----
Brother Royee wrote:
I think we must distinguish between the eternity of God (for He alone as the Father, the Word, and the Holy Spirit is eternal) and what was done in eternity before time. I understand the angels were created in eternity before time, but are not eternal as God is. In like manner, the humanity of Christ is not eternal, but was begotten in eternity as Proverbs 8 indicates.
If Christ did not exist in eternity, how could we have been chosen in Him before the foundation of the world (Eph. 1:4). We were not chosen in the Father, the Word, or the Holy Spirit, all of whom are eternal, but in Christ who does not or ever did exist just in His Divine Nature. This seems to me to be the crux of the matter unless I am mistaken. I do appreciate your input and that of others because, if I am wrong on this matter, I am willing to be corrected by concerned and loving brethren. I remain
Your learning brother,
Royee
--------
sing wrote:
Brother Rolls-Royee,
You raised a very good point.
Christ [the official title of the appointed Redeemer] existed in eternity ONLY in the sense that the Eternal Word has been appointed to be the Messiah of His people in the Everlasting Covenant. The Word existed in eternity. Christ did not exist in eternity. The Eternal Word and Christ need to be carefully distinguished. Jesus the Christ, the son of the living God, the dual-natured divine-human Being began to exist only when the eternal Word was made flesh.
EVEN SO, in that same sense, the elect people existed in eternity, and were chosen by God in Christ only in the decrees and purposes of God. In actual reality, they did not yet exist until creation (in in the case of Adam and Eve) and conception (all the offsprings of Adam) in time. Christ, the Redeemer appointed for the elect, and the elect existed eternally (before time) only in the decrees and purposes of God.
some simple thoughts,
sing
----
Dear Brother Sing and Brethren,
sing wrote: “My understanding on this subject is minimal. I hope you don't mind me expressing my simple understanding.”
Thank you for this lucid post.
It is refreshing to recognize, as you have demonstrated in so many words, that the whole matter simply comes down to rightly dividing and discerning between GOD THE SON and THE SON OF GOD.
Simple indeed, but "The LORD preserveth the simple: I was brought low, and
he helped me." Ps 116:6. And, "Qui scrutator est maiestatis opprimitur
gloria." Pr 25:27 (Vulg)
Ever,
Stevie
-------------
Dear Brother Stevie,
You wrote: “It is refreshing to recognize, as you have demonstrated in so many words, that the whole matter simply comes down to rightly dividing and discerning between GOD THE SON and THE SON OF GOD.”
I did say I am rather simple.
I don't seem to get the point between GOD THE SON and THE SON OF GOD.
Please elaborate a little.
Thanks.
sing
----
Brother Sing,
I'm simple too, too simple maybe:
GOD THE SON = Eternal Sonship
THE SON OF GOD = Incarnate Messiah
Stevie
----------
Brother Stevie,
Now I get your point.
Your observation is right, but your conclusion is non sequitur.
There are THREE PERSONS in the divine God-head.
These are distinguished by the theologians respectively as the God the Father, God the Son, and God the Spirit, according to how these three Persons are revealed in the redemptive history.
This DOES NOT mean that the second Person designated as God the Son, was the Son of God in eternity. The Scriptures clearly states that in eternity He was the Word, and the Word was with God. When the eternal Word was made flesh, we have the Son of God. Subsequently, the second Person of the God head is designated 'God the Son' in distinction from the other two Persons of the Godhead.
That is plain indeed.
sing
----------
On Jan 5, 2008, at 12:32 AM, Simbie wrote:
Dear sing,
Interesting thoughts. A pastor asked me if I think there is a difference between the usage of "Jesus Christ" and "Christ Jesus" in the Bible. I can't be sure but it seems that the former emphasizes on His humanity while the latter on His divinely given role. But to check if the use of either title has a particular importance or relevance in a passage would require detailed studies of the usage of the various titles or names given to Jesus. I have not the means to check all the references in the Bible to these phrases (lost my e-Bible CD). But I did notice that different versions sometimes use different title phrases for Jesus in the same verse. So it seems that at times, it doesn't matter whether it is Jesus Christ or Christ Jesus (?).
What is your thought?
Sitting at His feet,
Simbie
--------------------
Dear Simbie,
It is a good thing that we are like Mary sitting at Jesus' feet.
You have raised another separate but interesting subject.
This is my feeble thought:
Jesus is the personal name of the Son of God.
Christ is the title of the Son of God.
Jesus is the Christ, the Anointed One, the Messiah of His people.
After glorification His full name is the Lord Jesus Christ, the additional 'Lord' speaks of His Lordship over His redeemed people... in recognition of His messianic kingship after all His declaration, "All power is given unto me in heaven and in earth."
I think the difference between Jesus Christ and Christ Jesus is too insignificant to have any doctrinal implication. Like you have observed, it is a matter of emphasis, and doesn't matter whether it is Jesus Christ or Christ Jesus?
The subject I was digging is about the sonship of Jesus Christ. Please remember that Jesus Christ is that dual-natured divine-human Person. The eternal Word is that one-natured divine Person of the Triune God.
- Is Jesus Christ the ETERNAL Son of God? Did God has a Son from eternity?
- Is Jesus Christ the Son of the ETERNAL God? Did God beget a Son at some point in time?
Just asking.
What do you think the Lord is saying about Himself in this matter?
sing
----
On Jan 7, 2008, at 9:19 PM, Simbie wrote:
Dear sing,
I am answering from purely memory and "unprocessed thoughts". I have only heard Jesus calling Himself "Eternal Son of God" and never "Eternal Son of Man". So my deduction is that Jesus has always been (i.e. from eternity) the Son of God, whereas He became the Son of Man because He was not always man. Genesis seems to give the impression that the Triune God has always been so - God the Father, God the Son and God the Holy Spirit, at least at the time when the world was created.
Sitting at Jesus' feet
(because I am sometimes "accused" of being a Martha!)
Simbie
-------------
On Jan 7, 2008, at 11:39 PM, sing wrote:
Dear Simbie,
I do understand where you are coming from.
While it is true that there had always been three distinct Persons in the eternal Godhead - God, the Word, and the Spirit - the term 'Son of God' was used ONLY AFTER the incarnation of the eternal Word.
Lu 1:35 "And the angel answered and said unto her, The Holy Ghost shall come upon thee, and the power of the Highest shall overshadow thee: therefore also that holy thing which shall be born of thee shall be called the Son of God."
There was NO - NO - NO Son of God before the incarnation. There was the Eternal Word, the second Person of the Triune God. That 'holy thing' which was conceived of the Spirit of God shall be called the Son of God. The Son of God has a beginning in time... The only begotten Son of God was begotten by the Spirit of God in the womb of the virgin Mary.
The Son of God refers to that two-natured divine-human being named Jesus, who is the Christ. The two-natured Being of the Son of God has a definite beginning. God who begot Jesus is indeed eternal. But Jesus is not eternal. He has a beginning. The Word, BEFORE it was made flesh, is of course ETERNAL, NEVER BEGOTTEN IN ANY SENSE.
'In the beginning was the Word, and the Word was with God, and the Word was God.' But at a specific point in time, that Eternal Word was made flesh... WAS MADE!
Chew on this fresh piece of meat. May the Lord give you understanding.
Mt 13:52 Then said he unto them, Therefore every scribe which is instructed unto the kingdom of heaven is like unto a man that is an householder, which bringeth forth out of his treasure things new and old.
The above parable stirred me to start a blog at - http://things-new-and-old.blogspot.com/
sing
----
On Jan 8, 2008, at 12:14 AM, sing wrote:
Dear Simbie,
I forgot something I meant to ask: please show me the place in the Scriptures where Jesus called Himself "Eternal Son of God"?
Thanks.
sing
---
On Jan 8, 2008, at 9:24 PM, Simbie wrote:
Just one quick question - then why was Chirst not known as the Eternal Son of Man, for He certainly became man at a point in time (at His incarnation), right? His manhood also began in the womb of Mary.
Still puzzled,
Simbie
---------
On Jan 9, 2008, at 8:52 AM, sing wrote:
Dear Simbie,
You wrote: “Just one quick question - then why was Chirst not known as the Eternal Son of Man, for He certainly became man at a point in time (at His incarnation), right? His manhood also began in the womb of Mary.”
I even more puzzled by your question.
If the Eternal Word was made flesh and became the Son of Man at a certain specific point in time, then how could the Son of Man ever be eternal??? If the humanity of Jesus has a beginning, in the womb of virgin Mary, then the Son of Man cannot possibly be eternal, but has a definite beginning.
If the Son of Man is eternally existing, then it would be right to describe Him as the Eternal Son of Man, EVEN SO with the term 'Son of God.' If the Son of God is eternally existing, then it would be right to describe Him as the Eternal Son of God. But the simple and plain testimony of the Scriptures is that the Son of God - that DUAL-NATURED divine-human Person called Jesus - began its existence at a certain specific point in time. The Word - the ONE-NATURED divine Person - is eternal. The Word made flesh RESULTED in the Son of God/Son of Man. That happened at incarnation, resulting in a Person who is truly God and truly man, divinity taking humanity upon itself, "so that two whole, perfect, and distinct natures 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." (1689. CoF)
It was the eternal Word that was made flesh, i.e. incarnated or took upon Himself our humanity at a specific point in time. It was not Christ who was made flesh. 'Christ' (Messiah) is the official title that Jesus bore, indicating His office and work as the Redeemer of His people. The title of a person cannot be made flesh, cannot become man.
In the eternal covenant of redemption ('eternal' because it took place before time), God chose a people out of the fallen race of Adam (existed by virtue of the decrees of creation, and of the fall logically preceding that of the election) and gave them unto the second Person of the Godhead, the eternal Word, who agreed to be the Messiah (Christ) of the people God has given to Him. So, in the redemptive purpose and mind of God, the elect people of God existed before their actual existence. EVEN SO, the office of Christ/Messiah existed in the redemptive purpose and mind of God before the eternal Word was made flesh in time, and assume the title and work of the Messiah. In time, the Eternal Word was made flesh and took upon Himself that office and work.
Matthew 16:
13 ¶ When Jesus came into the coasts of Caesarea Philippi, he asked his disciples, saying, Whom do men say that I the Son of man am?
14 And they said, Some say that thou art John the Baptist: some, Elias; and others, Jeremias, or one of the prophets.
15 He saith unto them, But whom say ye that I am?
16 And Simon Peter answered and said, Thou art the Christ, the Son of the living God.
Peter said, 'Jesus, thou art the Christ, the Son of the living God.' 'Christ' defines the person of Jesus.
Sing said, 'Simbie, thou art the Prof, the PhD grad of Harvard U.'
Sing said, 'When Prof Simbie was six years old, she killed a big python.' I am speaking from the present perspective when Simbie IS presently a Prof. But Simbie was not a Prof when she was six years old.
Jesus' words about the eternity of His Father must be understood from the same perspective. He speaks from the perspective as the incarnated, Word made flesh, Son of God. God is eternal. God is Jesus' Father - being begotten of the Father in time, i.e. at the time when the Word was made flesh. His Father is eternal. But to conclude that the Son (divine/human Person) must therefore be eternal, is a fallacious conclusion. It is like concluding that Simbie was already a Prof at six. A poor illustration.
sing
-----
On Jan 14, 2008, at 7:50 PM, Simbie wrote:
Dear sing,
Thank you for enlightening me. It was an interesting insightful explanation.
Pardon that puzzling question. It was because I understood you as arguing the term "Son of God" as given only when Christ became man, which was also the time when He became the "Son of Man". So why the term "eternal" only used with the Son of God and not with the Son of Man.
But after reading your follow-up explanation, I now understand you as saying that God the Father begot Jesus as His Son only at the time when the Word became flesh. That means Christ was not God the Son before incarnation; which means the relationship between the first and second Person in the Trinity was not a Father-Son relationship from eternity(?). However, I thought even in the OT prophecies, there were references to Jehovah sending His Son (?), Ps 2:7. In Heb 1:5 the writer described God speaking to us by a Son, ..... through whom also He created the world, implying that the relationship was in existence from the beginning of this world (?).
At the feet of Jesus,
Simbie
---------
On Jan 15, 2008, at 12:05 AM, sing wrote:
Dear Simbie,
You wrote: “But after reading your follow-up explanation, I now understand you as saying that God the Father begot Jesus as His Son only at the time when the Word became flesh. That means Christ was not God the Son before incarnation; which means the relationship between the first and second Person in the Trinity was not a Father-Son relationship from eternity(?). However, I thought even in the OT prophecies, there were references to Jehovah sending His Son (?), Ps 2:7. In Heb 1:5 the writer described God speaking to us by a Son, ..... through whom also He created the world, implying that the relationship was in existence from the beginning of this world (?).”
You raised a very interesting question. A very knowledgeable and seasoned theologian raised the same objection. I replied him in the post below.
Read it slowly and see you if can gather up something.
Your question is specifically answered.
sing
------
Begin forwarded message:
From: sing
Date: January 13, 2008 2:23:20 AM GMT+07:00
To: Jay
Subject: Re: 1 John 5:7, "and that these three are one."
Dear Veteran teacher Jay,
This is the last mail...
I will make comments marked ## within your post.
You said: “It is essential in good communications to clearly define our terms. When relying on a common source of authority, it is equally essential to define our terms consistently with that common authority. Please refer to my post to Brother Genie. Both in the passage from the tenth chapter of John that Brother Genie quoted, as well as in John 5:18 that I quoted, the father-son relationship is clearly defined as equality, not as you define it in your note below. I do not accept your definition of "Son" that you set forth, and apparently you do not like John's definition of equality or sameness of nature that I cited. I find no definition of "sonship" in the New Testament that correlates with your definition. Perhaps we need to peel the onion one more layer and try to find Biblical affirmation of the meaning of our terms to help us understand and communicate more clearly on this question.”
## Father is divine. Word is divine
Son of God is Word was made flesh, and therefore, Son of God is divine/human.
Are these correct? If not, please make the correction, and state the reason.
Do the Father (divine) and the Son (divine/human) have the 'equality and sameness of nature'?
Before the Word was made flesh, the 1st and 2nd Person of the Godhead have the 'equality and sameness of nature.' I would NOT say that a divine person and a divine/human Person have 'equality and sameness of nature.' [Father is one person/one nature; Son is one person/TWO natures. They have the SAME divine natures, but only one has the human nature.]
Jay: "In the meantime I have a question.
1. In John 1:3 John affirms that the Word make all things that were made. In other words the Word was the creative "Person" in the Trinity.
## The Word (divine Person) made all things that were made BEFORE the Word was made flesh (divine/human Person)
The Son of God (divine/human Person) that was born of the virgin woman did NOT make all things that were made.
Jay: “2. In Hebrews 1:2 we are told that God has now spoken to us by "...his Son, whom he hath appointed heir of all things, by whom also he made the worlds."
## 'Hath in these last days' - i.e. in the days when the Word was ALREADY made flesh, and the Son was begotten, and born of the virgin. BEFORE the last days, there was no Son of God; BUT there was the eternal Word. The Son (divine/human Person) did NOT made the worlds. The pre-incarnated Word did.
Jay: “3. In Colossians 1:13-14 we read that God has translated us into the kingdom of "his dear Son...." In the fifteenth verse Paul describes the "Son," not the "Word," in these words, "Who is the image of the invisible God, the firstborn of every creature: For by him were all things created that are in heaven, and that are in earth, visible and invisible...."
## It is quite simple if you would want to know. After the eternal Word was made flesh, i.e. the Son of God having been begotten, all the works of the pre-incarnated Word is spoken of in reference to the Son of God because the Son of God, the Word made flesh, IS the NEW term of reference in the last days when the Word has been made flesh.
Remember I said the common manner of speaking: 'when my wife was a little girl, she killed a python.' When she killed that python, she was a little girl, the sweet daughter of her father, and was remotely my wife. But I speak in that manner because I speak from the new, and present perspective of her being my wife.
So, what is the problem? I just don't see any. Why insist otherwise and get messed up with contradictions and inconsistencies!!! Why read otherwise and insist that the Son is eternally begotten while the Scriptures SO PLAINLY and VIVIDLY described the time of the begetting of the Son of God... Luke 1:35.
Jay: "If the "Son" only began to exist at virgin birth, why do we read from two inspired authors of the New Testament that the "Son" was the source of creation, precisely as clearly as John attributed that work to the "Word"? But if the term "Son" means sameness of nature or equality, a definition that has no reference to the Incarnation, we have no problem with these verses, for "Word" and "Son" refer to the same Person in the Trinity, and they attribute work to the "Son" that was accomplished long before the Incarnation. If Paul held to the view that you seem to be defending (I could well not understand you correctly), he should have been more careful in his use of "Word" and "Son," attributing creation to the "Word," not to the "Son."
## Why? See comment above. Quite simple reason.
If you think the term Son of God has no reference to Incarnation, then you may need to delete these passages:
Luke 1: 35 And the angel answered and said unto her, The Holy Ghost shall come upon thee, and the power of the Highest shall overshadow thee: therefore also that holy thing which shall be born of thee shall be called the Son of God.
John 1: 14 And the Word was made flesh, and dwelt among us, (and we beheld his glory, the glory as of the only begotten of the Father,) full of grace and truth.
I don't see any difficulty at all if you JUST accept the FACT of what actually took place at Incarnation. I am surprised that you said the term Son has no reference to incarnation. I AM SHOCKED. This is the first time I heard such shocking statement!!!
If "Word" and "Son" refer to the same Person in the Trinity, THEN I conclude that there is HUMANITY in your idea of the Triune God. Is this scooter [non sequitur] or not???
Would you accept that there is NO humanity in the Word, and there is humanity in the Son?
Jay: “I have a question that might help us cut through the issues. If you were to accept the definition of "Son" that I have presented above, have I represented any belief or doctrine that you do not also accept and agree with? A correct definition of terms is truly a supremely important issue in striving to understand each other.”
## You definition of the Son is that it is exactly the same as the Word. Your 'Word' is the 'Son', and your 'Son' is the 'Word.' Incarnation has no biblical place in your definition. Might as well the MOMENTOUS event of incarnation didn't happened at all. So, I do not agree with your definition. The Word was made flesh DOES NOT figure in your definition.
I have learned from the earliest day as a believer that the Son of God is GOD/MAN.
If the Word is GOD/MAN also, then I agree with you.
So, please tell me whether your Word is GOD/MAN?
If your Word is GOD/MAN, then why was the Word made flesh? What a wasted move! And I believe in the God who wastes NO move.
Keep speaking. Someone advised me, "when Brother Jay speak, listen carefully."
I take that advice seriously. And I am listening seriously. That's why I responded to the issue you raise. I know I will learn something, whether we can agree or not.
I know you are not those who would devour me.
blessed,
sing
----
On Jan 15, 2008, at 9:18 AM, sing wrote:
Dear Simbie,
Simbie: “Pardon that puzzling question. It was because I understood you as arguing the term "Son of God" as given only when Christ became man, which was also the time when He became the "Son of Man". So why the term "eternal" only used with the Son of God and not with the Son of Man.”
Sometimes your students refer to you as 'Prof.' And that's not wrong... we often use the title as a synonym for the person. But 'Prof' is not you, 'Prof' is your title. The same with the word 'Christ.' It is not quite right to say 'Christ became man.' The Scriptures say that the eternal 'Word was made flesh.' 'Christ' is the title of the Son of God - indicating Him as the Anointed One and the work He was commissioned to do. Christ never became the Son of Man. The Son of Man bore the title Christ, marking Him as the Anointed One, the promised Savior.
Simbie: “But after reading your follow-up explanation, I now understand you as saying that God the Father begot Jesus as His Son only at the time when the Word became flesh. That means Christ was not God the Son before incarnation; which means the relationship between the first and second Person in the Trinity was not a Father-Son relationship from eternity(?). However, I thought even in the OT prophecies, there were references to Jehovah sending His Son (?), Ps 2:7. In Heb 1:5 the writer described God speaking to us by a Son, ..... through whom also He created the world, implying that the relationship was in existence from the beginning of this world (?)”
Please note carefully a few obvious and basic things said in Luke 1:
32 He shall be great, and shall be called the Son of the Highest: and the Lord God shall give unto him the throne of his father David:
33 And he shall reign over the house of Jacob for ever; and of his kingdom there shall be no end.
34 Then said Mary unto the angel, How shall this be, seeing I know not a man?
35 And the angel answered and said unto her, The Holy Ghost shall come [FUTURE] upon thee, and the power of the Highest shall overshadow [FUTURE] thee: therefore also that holy thing which shall be born [FUTURE passive] of thee shall be called [FUTURE passive] the Son of God.
John 1:14 And the Word was made flesh, and dwelt among us, (and we beheld his glory, the glory as of the only begotten of the Father,) full of grace and truth.
- The Highest and the Holy Spirit SHALL - SHALL - SHALL act powerful and mysteriously in begetting, with the effect that the Son of God SHALL - SHALL - SHALL be born.
- The eternal Word was MADE - MADE - MADE flesh... When? How? What is the result? What for? Luke 1 passage answers these and other questions.
- SHALL BE CALLED [future passive] The Son of God DOES NOT YET exist. The Word was not yet made flesh. The Highest and the Holy Ghost have not yet acted but SHALL SOON after the announcement. The effect SHALL BE [future] the bringing forth or the begetting of the Son of God.
- If the Son of God existed before the Word was made flesh in time, then it would NOT be 'shall be called.'
- The 'HOLY THING' must be brought into being first before it can be called the Son of God.
- That which was begotten of the Highest (now called the Father because of the mediatorial relationship established by the incarnation in the outworking of the redemption) dwelt among us.
The term Father and Son speaks of the mediatorial relationship between the 1st and 2nd Person of the Trinity in the economy of redemption. This relationship was established by the divine activity of begetting by the Highest and the Holy Spirit when the Word WAS MADE flesh. Also, in the economy of redemption, the Son is subordinated to the Father, the Son doing the will of the Father.
The OT prophecies of God sending His Son... the fulfillment must be understood in light of what the NT says... the Son is the RESULT of the 'Word was made flesh,' of the begetting activity of the Highest and the Holy Ghost. It would be a basic mistake to read backward and say that God has a Son before incarnation, before the begetting activity of the Highest and the Holy Ghost.
You know, we have picked up so much theological SHIBBOLETHS and JARGONS that we have not think about whether they be true or not, whether they be consistent with the Scriptures or not. No wonder there is a solemn command, "Study to shew thyself approved unto God, a workman that needeth not to be ashamed, rightly dividing the word of truth." 2Tim 2:15.
I am feebly observing that command.
Take time to digest...
another hungry Mary,
sing
----
On Jan 15, 2008, at 9:20 AM, sing wrote:
Dear Simbie,
You said, " However, I thought even in the OT prophecies, there were references to Jehovah sending His Son (?), Ps 2:7. "
Funny, I have a similar thought about Ps 2:7, but was pointed out my error.
I am learning. Just read a part of the exchanges:
sing
---------------
On Jan 11, 2008, at 1:56 PM, sing wrote:
Brethren,
I was taking a peep in the 1689 CoF while reading the posts on 1Jn 5:7.
In read in 2.3 these words:
3. In this divine and infinite Being there are three subsistences, the Father, the Word or Son, and Holy Spirit, (27) of one substance, power, and eternity, each having the whole divine essence, yet the essence undivided,(28) the Father is of none, neither begotten nor proceeding; the Son eternally begotten of the Father;(29) the Holy Spirit proceeding from the Father and the Son;(30) all infinite, without beginning, therefore but one God, who is not to be divided in nature and being, but distinguished by several peculiar relative properties and personal relations; which doctrine of the Trinity is the foundation of all our communion with God, and comfortable dependence upon Him."
Then I remembered the words in Psalm 2:
7 ¶ I will declare the decree: the LORD hath said unto me, Thou art my Son; this day have I begotten thee.
Here is my question: How do we reconcile the Scriptures' 'THIS DAY' and the 1689 CoF's 'ETERNALLY'?
If the Father is NOT begotten, and the Son is begotten (whether eternally or in time), then are They still of one divine essence? I hope they are reasonable questions. If not, just ignore.
Off to bring back the buffaloes.
Dark cloud gathering.
sing
--
On Jan 11, 2008, at 3:07 PM, Edie wrote:
Dear brother Sing,
I believe that it is reasonable to ask the questions you have asked.
You wrote in part: “Then I remembered the words in Psalm 2: 7 ¶ I will declare the decree: the LORD hath said unto me, Thou art my Son; this day have I begotten thee. Here is my question: How do we reconcile the Scriptures' 'THIS DAY' and the 1689 CoF's 'ETERNALLY'?
Brother Sing, according to Paul's interpretation of the Psalm 2 passage, the word *begotten* refers to the resurrection of Christ from the dead (Acts 13: 33,34). In other words, the Psalms 2 passage should be understood as saying, "...this day have I begotten thee from the dead/ or from the grave". In the LCOF article you cited they are discussing the relationship within the Trinity; they are Not discussing the resurrection. Both subjects are good, interesting, and true, but they are different subjects. Accordingly, it is an error to impose the Psalm 2 passage upon the Trinity discussion you refer to. IMO, this creates unnecessary difficulties and questions which would not otherwise arise.
What do you think?
Brotherly,
Edie
-------------
On Jan 11, 2008, at 9:13 PM, sing wrote:
Dear Brother Edie,
What do I think?
I think thou art a great brother - you save me from falling into a black pit of error.
Thank you for the light of Acts 14:33-34.
Is 'begotten' to be understood as reference to resurrection in other places, say John 3:16 - in what sense is Jesus the only begotten Son? Is he the only begotten in that he is the only resurrected Son? This is a sincere inquiry.
The same passage from Ps 2 is quoted in Heb 1.
5 For unto which of the angels said he at any time, Thou art my Son, this day have I begotten thee? And again, I will be to him a Father, and he shall be to me a Son?
6 And again, when he bringeth in the first begotten into the world, he saith, And let all the angels of God worship him.
What does the author have in mind when he speak of the 'begetting' here in this passage?
I have always understood the begetting in light of the event described in Luke 1.
You have shown me another aspect of the 'begetting' that I have not thought of. You have made me richer!
Now, I need to rightly divide the word of truth whenever I see begetting/begotten... to know which is which.. whether the begetting refers to the event in Luke 1 (Word made flesh) or Luke 24 (Son of God raised from the dead.)
I have some serious study to do on the 'begetting' of the Son of God, Word was made flesh.
Thanks.
sing
-----------
