The Highway Forums General Discussion Devotional The Deep, Deep Love of Jesus

"Is Paul speaking here in Phil 25-8 about the pre-incarnate or about the incarnate Christ?" It is not difficult to answer. The two must not be separated. The One who in his pre-incarnate state [Son of God] exists in a manner equal to God and is the same divine Person who in his incarnate state becomes obedient even to the extent of death,...Naturally, in order to show the greatness of our Lord's sacrifice, the apostle's starting-point is the Christ in his pre-incarnate state. Then follows of necessity Christ in his incarnate state. This strongly reminds one of 2Cor 8:9. 'Though he was rich, yet for your sake he became poor.' One might compare this transition to what is found in the Gospel of John, Chapter 1: 'In the beginning was the Word, and the Word was face to face with God, and the Word was God. He himself was in the beginning face to face with God . . . And the Word became flesh, and dwelt among us as in a tent, and we beheld his glory.'"

Again, one must carefully distinguish between the divine and the human natures of Christ and not confuse them which you are wanting to do. The divine nature, the Son of God is eternal but the human nature is temporal; i.e., it had a beginning but with no end.

Yes, the LORD Christ was both divine and human. There is no dispute concerning this truth. The issue is whether Jesus in his incarnate state was eternal. I, along with the entire Church answers, "No!", but you answer, "Yes!". More on this later.

An illogical leap without warrant. ALL things were considered as done before the foundation of the world, but that does not mean all things existed before the foundation of the world. To do so, in the least, would negate prophecy; a foretelling of that which did not exist but would happen later in space and time.

Oh, but it certainly does, otherwise the incarnation was not real, which I have already pointed out to you. Two distinct natures were joined in the one person of Jesus Christ. And until that supernatural event occurred, the human nature did not exist. Again, I already pointed this out as well, e.g., "For unto us a child is born, unto us a son is given;..." Isa 9:6a. A 'child' [Jesus, son of Mary] was born, i.e., it came into existence for the very first time. A 'son' [God the Son] was given, i.e., one who already existed.

I have already addressed this as well on several occasions. Jesus did not exist in eternity and thus could not have created all things. You can say you aren't denying the incarnation, but this is exactly what you are doing.

No, it was not just the 'human body of Jesus' that died. This is yet another serious error. It was the human NATURE of Christ that died, i.e., that which constitutes a human died; both body and spirit. There are 2 natures co-existing in the one person of the Lord Jesus Christ; divine and human. The Son of God did not occupy just a fleshly shell. But rather two distinct natures were present. I've already covered this too.

You are assuming the very issue in dispute. The "Word" is the eternal Son of God; the second person of the divine Trinity and NOT as you are assuming, Jesus of Nazareth. I have deliberately included your entire statement in the above quote in order to show just how astray you have gone in your denial of what the entire Church has affirmed in the Chalcedon Creed. You cannot intermix the two natures but rather they must be acknowledged. The eternal Son of God is nowhere called "Jesus" UNTIL the incarnation, wherein the Son of God BECAME flesh; i.e., joined Himself with a human nature.

What? Are you now asserting that the eternal Son of God, the second person of the Trinity has a "spirit"?

Those without the Spirit of God will always add or detract from the Word of God and make their man-made traditions on par or above the Word of God in authority. However, interpreting Scripture and codifying its teachings is hardly the same as unbiblical man-made tradition. It is God's intent for His people to not only read His inspired written Word but to interpret and then apply it. This is what the Church has done from the beginning. Jude calls it "the faith once delivered unto the saints." This phrase isn't simply referring to the Bible, but the teachings of the Bible which the Apostles gave during their earthly ministry. Even the apostle Paul humbled himself and submitted his teachings before the elders at Jerusalem in order that they might be scrutinized and either be found wanting or acceptable. Paul also counseled Timothy to hold fast to the doctrines he had been taught. The Church was given certain gifted individuals; pastor/teachers who were to instruct the people of God from Scripture. Throughout history, the Church has put into writing summaries of biblical truth found in its Confessions and Catechisms. There are good traditions and bad traditions, e.g., read John Murray's excellent article, Tradition: Romish and Protestant.

Do you own one or more systematic theology books? Have you ever read them? If so, which do you have? OR, do you believe you have no use for such works because you only need your Bible? Do you seriously believe that all that have gone before you have erred on this subject, e.g., Augustine, Tertullian, Luther, Calvin, Owen, Edwards, Hodge, Berkhof, etc., etc...? Are you of the opinion that the entire Church has failed to grasp the truth of this matter for 2000+ years but you have discovered the 'truth'? Personally, from my own studies and having compared them to myriad volumes I find that what I believe to be in 100% accord with what the Church has believed and taught. Can you say the same? Or, again is it that what others have believed and taught, set in writing as secondary authorities, are of no importance to you?