Featured Let’s review some basic Christian understanding

I am saying that God cannot become human. If He did He would not be God! That sounds simple enough! The person Jesus Christ did not exist until the Incarnation. Read Hebrews 10:5 and honor your promise not to argue with Scripture.
5. Wherefore when he cometh into the world, he saith, Sacrifice and offering thou wouldest not, but a body hast thou prepared me:

What was that you said about arguing with Scripture? The fulness of the Godhead is Father, Son, and Holy Spirit.

 

There is only one God!

 

Really? That is not what my Bible says.

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.

God became human (flesh).

 

I will simply repeat what I have said in an earlier post:

 

The whole concept of the incarnation is that God became man.
This is what John 1:14 declares. The Word became flesh.

Philippians 2:6 who, existing in the form of God, didn't consider it robbery to be equal with God,
7 but emptied himself, taking the form of a servant, being made in the likeness of men.
8 And being found in human form, he humbled himself, becoming obedient to death, yes, the death of the cross. (WEB)

He became a man; became sin for us; as a man died and suffered for us, that he might pay the penalty that we could never pay. Though a man, he never sinned. He had no sin nature. Though a man; he still was God. God became man. That is the incarnation.

 

I'm not denying that God the Father prepared a body for God the Word/Son. I don't even know what point you are trying to make with this verse, except I'll say this: If your belief is that the incarnation was simply the divine spirit inhabiting a human body, it is an incomplete view of the incarnation, and not consistent with the historical understanding.

[/QUOTE]

Agreed, however it does not follow that whatever one person of the trinity does, the other necessarily does.

I think the main difficulty is you see the word "Became" to mean that something in the divine was altered/lessened to "become" human. I simply use the word "became" to mean that the divine took on NOT ONLY human flesh, but the entirety of a human nature as well, yet without sin.

"became" is biblical language: "The Word BECAME flesh." The Word was God (jn. 1:1)...so "God" became flesh...what is flesh? It is Humanity....ie, God (2nd person of trinity) became human. Very Biblical. Jesus was a man, men are human.

In fact, Jesus Christ is STILL a human man. ("There IS [present tense] one mediator between God and man, the MAN Jesus Christ.")

 

True.:thumbs:

 

Is not "Word" also at title? Is not Jesus not referred to as the "Word" until the New Testament? You are applying a different set of rules to John than you are applying to Hebrews. John says the Word created all things...Hebrews says it was through the SON that all things were created. I believe both.

 

Nuancing old nuances

Great is the mystery of Godliness...

God cannot be adequately described in human terminology nor membership in MENSA. All systematic theologies not withstanding He is still omnicient. We still struggle with Gen 1-11. Mars Hill will melt with fervent along with all the other works of man.

Preach the Word.

Even so, come Lord Jesus.

Bro. James

 

We struggle with phrases such as "the lamb slain before the foundation of the world," yet in real time he was slain on the cross. That was witnessed by mankind. In the same way He may have been considered as the Son in eternity pass, but did not become the Son until he became "the only begotten Son, the only begotten of the Father." What do we do with these terms? Are they totally meaningless?

The only way that we can reconcile them is to consider that outside of the creation of man there is no time. Time was created for man. With God there is no time. As far as man is concerned Christ became man, became the Son when he was born. He became the sacrificial lamb when he was sacrificed.
John said:
Behold the Lamb of God which takes away the sin of the world.
He could have never said that before Christ came into the world, because Christ, the Son of God, didn't exist as such, though He existed as deity--deity which no man hath seen at any time.

 

You are ignoring what the Scripture you posted says:

taking the form of a servant, being made in the likeness of men.

being found in human form

Nowhere does it say that the Second Person of the Trinity became a man. Chalcedon dealt with this very problem and answered it as well as could be possible I suppose. Please notice what the Chalcedon Creed says:

Chalcedon states that the distinction of natures being by no means taken away by the union.

There were two natures in Jesus Christ, the divine nature of the Second person of the Trinity and the human nature, the seed of Abraham. These two natures remained distinct. Therefore the divine nature did not become a human nature!

 

I would say that this question was addressed at Chalcedon as well as could be addressed, I suppose. And I submit that Chalcedon is the historic understanding of the Incarnation.

Notice that Chalcedon states: the distinction of natures being by no means taken away by the union. In the Incarnation the divine nature remains divine and the human nature remains human. Now this has been the orthodox doctrine of the Incarnation since Chalcedon with the exception of the false claim that Mary is the Mother of God [which is the false doctrine of the Roman and Orthodox Communions].

 

Don't quote to me Chalcedon. It only shows to me that you are putting the words of men to be of greater authority than the inspired Word of God. Are you unable to deal with Scripture. I quoted Scripture for you, and explained my position through Scripture. Are you not able to refute it? If not, then consider my position as correct. That is all I have to say on the matter. Christ became man. John 1:14.

 

I agree that the divine nature did not become a human nature, rather it took on a human nature, BECOMING completely human, while remaining fully God.

I agree with DHK, you are ignoring John 1:14...
-"The word BECAME flesh."
-"THe word" = God (jn. 1:1)
-"Flesh = Human"
-Conclusion: God Became Human.

SO...John says the Word BECAME flesh...other scriptures say he "took on" flesh. Which is it? BOTH! It's simply different language to describe the indescribable...but it cannot be proven to be unbiblical to say that the 2nd person of trinity BECAME a man.

 

I am not ignoring John 1:14. In fact that was the first verse of Scripture I posted. To say that the Word became flesh does not say that God the Word became a man. The idea that God became a man smacks of the old Roman demigods becoming humans.

 

is "Incarnation" the correct terminology to use?

 

That is nonsense. Stop reading Roman mythology then and start reading your Bible!

Webster 1828
INCARNA'TION, n. The act of clothing with flesh.
1. The act of assuming flesh, or of taking a human body and the nature of man; as the incarnation of the Son of God.

Easton's Bible Dictionary
Incarnation
that act of grace whereby Christ took our human nature into union with his Divine Person, became man. Christ is both God and man. Human attributes and actions are predicated of him, and he of whom they are predicated is God. A Divine Person was united to a human nature (Ac 20:28; Ro 8:32; 1Co 2:8; Heb 2:11-14; 1Ti 3:16; Ga 4:4, etc.). The union is hypostatical, i.e., is personal; the two natures are not mixed or confounded, and it is perpetual.

Incarnation
The incarnation took place when Christ took our human nature on himself and became a human being.
Christ is both God and man. A Divine Person was united to a human nature (Acts 20:28; Rom. 8:32; 1 Cor. 2:8; Heb. 2:11-14; 1 Tim. 3:16; Gal. 4:4, etc.). The union is hypostatical, i.e., is personal; the two natures are not mixed, and it is perpetual.
—AMG's Encyclopedia of Bible Facts

All three of these dictionaries and others say the same basic truth--Christ became a man; became human--became flesh. They are all synonymous statements.



(CEV) The Word became a human being and lived here with us. We saw his true glory, the glory of the only Son of the Father. From him all the kindness and all the truth of God have come down to us.
--There is the odd translation that will even translate it this way. This is the Contemporary English Version, close to a paraphrase, nevertheless it does show the truth of the matter.



When all the evidence stacks up against you, how can you say, or at least infer: "I'm right and everyone else is wrong."

 

I know that folks on this Forum are prone to ignore the writings of some of the old Saints of God. I have previously posted the remarks of John Gill regarding the Incarnation and they are worth repeating:

The Apostle John writes of the Incarnation:

John 1:14
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.

John Gill writing about John 1:14 states:

Notice that John Gill states clearly: when he is said to be "made" flesh, this was not done by the change of one nature into another, the divine into the human, or the word into a man; but by the assumption of the human nature, the word, taking it into personal union with himself; whereby the natures are not altered; Christ remained what he was,

What Gill says is perfectly consistent with Chalcedon!

Then there is a much newer Saint that I believe properly understands the Incarnation, Dr. Martyn Lloyd-Jones. In his book God the Father, God the Son Dr. Lloyd-Jones writes, page 257, more simple than Gill:

The remainder of Martyn Lloyd-Jones' discussion of the Incarnation is perfectly consistent with Chalcedon!

 

I understand what I read!

Not that Webster is the authority on the Incarnation but please note that he does not say that the Son of God became a man. He says

Easton almost gets it then screws it up. He says

. That is consistent with Chalcedon but he goes too far and says

AMG's definition is somewhat confused, not clear what he means!

I don't care how many dictionaries you use God did not become a man. He took on the form of a man. The two are not the same!!

The CEV is false and is a perfect illustration of the problem with paraphrases! Some poor soul will read that stuff and believe it!

I am not saying I am right and everyone else is wrong. Gill is right., Lloyd-Jones is right. Chalcedon is correct except for the nonsense about Mary being the Mother of God. Webster almost gets it and I am right!