Featured The Son Learned Obedience

It was not a reference to your post, as I did not see that in your post. It was a reference to post 14, where Tyndale said Jesus was born into sinless human flesh. But in this post you seem to agree.

That idea runs counter to scripture - Romans 8:3 & Hebrews 2:14-17 and others. He took upon Himself the Sam as us. He was made like His brethren in all things. To da otherwise is to have a different Christ from scripture.

Sure, you've got the Christ of Roman Catholicism, the Christ of creeds, but it's not the Christ of scripture.

God is Spirit, not flesh. The sinless Word of God took upon Himself sinful flesh, withstood the temptations of that flesh and overcame it perfectly and flawlessly. Something no other human has ever been able to accomplish.

This whole notion that a spirit is made sinful through a physical birth is ludicrous. God til Adam "Cursed is the GROUND because of you..."

Never once does scripture say that Adam brought a curse the very breath of God. And that is where OUR spirit comes from - Zechariah 12:1, Ecclesiastes 12:7

He brought a curse to ALL flesh. And if not Christ's flesh, then Christ was not made like us in all things.

 

James,

I understand what you are attempting to view, however, the view is not aligned with Scriptures.

The Scriptures state in Romans:

3 For what the Law could not do, weak as it was through the flesh, God did: sending His own Son in the likeness of sinful flesh and as an offering for sin, He condemned sin in the flesh,...
​

The Scriptures state in Hebrews:

14 Therefore, since the children share in flesh and blood, He Himself likewise also partook of the same, that through death He might render powerless him who had the power of death, that is, the devil, 15 and might free those who through fear of death were subject to slavery all their lives. 16 For assuredly He does not give help to angels, but He gives help to the descendant of Abraham. 17 Therefore, He had to be made like His brethren in all things, so that He might become a merciful and faithful high priest in things pertaining to God, to make propitiation for the sins of the people.
​

Neither these verses, nor at any other place do the Scriptures state that Christ was born in sin or took the flesh of sin. Rather He was made "like us" (flesh and blood - Hebrews).


There is a complete union of God and man in Christ until the Cross. The man was subject to the tests and trials as any man, "yet without sin."



Hebrews (4:15) states the matter most clearly:

For we do not have a high priest who cannot sympathize with our weaknesses, but One who has been tempted in all things as we are, yet without sin.​

 

Actually I think we agree.

But every man is tempted, when he is drawn away of his own lust, and enticed. James 1:14
Then when lust hath conceived, it bringeth forth sin: and sin, when it is finished, bringeth forth death. 15

Adam the carnal man, put in the garden where the serpent was and the woman taken from him, who before the foundation of the world were going to need to be redeemed. Bought back.

I believe that lust above is, the lust of the flesh, and every man who has been born of woman, inclusive of the created man, Adam, allowed himself to be tempted, through the lust of the flesh unto sin. The one exception being, Jesus the Christ, who came in the flesh, subject to the lust of the flesh, tempted in all points as we are, yet without sin.

They were both naked and unashamed. the serpent deceived the woman, she took and gave to her husband and they consumed, the knowledge of good and evil, Adam by his own lust, was tempted, sin was brought forth, they saw they were both naked and were ashamed and dead in trespass and sin.

And I will put enmity between thee and the woman, and between thy seed and her seed; it shall bruise thy head, and thou shalt bruise his heel. Gen 3:15

Known unto God are all his works from the beginning of the world. Acts 15:18

 

Percho, I have a slightly different view of Adam's character pre and post fall.

Remembering that he walked and talked to God face to face as no person has from the fall, and he possessed the superior knowledge as no person (some want to except Solomon but Solomon was wise, but not always smart - in my opinion - but it is of no consequence to the discussion of Adam).

Therefore, Adam new the minute Eve brought the forbidden to him that there had been a change in Eve.

He also knew that the judgment of God was death.

Adam had the love of God which compelled him to remain with Eve, in effect he gave his life for Eve. He freely chose, and he freely gave up the relationship with God in favor of that relationship of love for his wife. They chose death over life. Something that Christ warned believers when faced with betrayal and must deny the family rather than God.

Adam did not have "lust" pre-fall. He had devotion and commitment to God and to Eve. He freely chose Eve.

After the fall, the affections and emotions were corrupted into lust of flesh, eyes, and pride. Adam, pre-fall, had none of these attributes.

 

Question: If the Son was begotten on a particular day ('today') how was He eternally begotton? Eternity has no beginning nor stands in any reference to time.

In fact the correct application of Psalm 2:7 is to the resurrection of Christ as stated by John in Acts 13:33; not for eternal generation of the Son. The resurrection proved he was the Son of God Romans 1:4 And declared to be the Son of God with power, according to the spirit of holiness, by the resurrection from the dead:

 

I can only refer you back to my post. God lives in an eternal 'today.' If Christ was not eternally begotten of the Father, all the creeds and confessions are wrong and we shall have to become Jehovah's Witnesses.
[BTW, I apologize for my incorrect ascription of Psalm 2. A senior moment!]

He was certainly proven and declared to be the Son of God by His resurrection, but He was not begotten at His resurrection (Micah 5:2 etc.).

 

The Son Learned Obedience

by the things he suffered. Hebrews 5:8

Is suffered, inclusive unto death? Sufferings, learned obedience - Phil 2:8 became obedient, unto death.

Now we have a Son, dead subject to corruption yet will not see corruption.


Will his Father, bring him forth, birth him from the dead?

Is the following speaking of Jesus rather than David and is it speaking of Jesus while he lay dead?

If I say, Surely the darkness shall cover me; even the night shall be light about me. Yea, the darkness hideth not from thee; but the night shineth as the day: the darkness and the light are both alike to thee. For thou hast possessed my reins: thou hast covered me in my mother's womb. I will praise thee; for I am fearfully and wonderfully made: marvellous are thy works; and that my soul knoweth right well. My substance was not hid from thee, when I was made in secret, and curiously wrought in the lowest parts of the earth.> (compare Matt 12:40} Thine eyes did see my substance, yet being unperfect; Ps 139:11-16 1st sentence.

Jesus brought forth from the dead, born without pain and travail?

Isa 66:7 Before she travailed, she brought forth; before her pain came, she was delivered of a man child. Acts 2:24 Whom God hath raised up, having loosed the (birth) pains of death: because it was not possible that he should be holden of it. Hebrews 5:9 And being made perfect, he became the author of eternal salvation unto all them that obey him;

Are all of those speaking of Jesus, the firstborn from the dead?

Do the following speak of the church to be brought forth as he was?

The balance of Ps 139:16 and in thy book all my members were written, which in continuance were fashioned, when as yet there was none of them. Isa 66:8,9 Who hath heard such a thing? who hath seen such things? Shall the earth be made to bring forth in one day? or shall a nation be born at once? for as soon as Zion travailed, she brought forth her children. Shall I bring to the birth, and not cause to bring forth? saith the LORD: shall I cause to bring forth, and shut the womb? saith thy God.


Did the Son learn obedience. Did the one who could save him from death, save him? - Who in the days of his flesh, when he had offered up prayers and supplications with strong crying and tears unto him that was able to save him from death, and was heard in that he feared; Heb 5:7
And that he died for all, that they which live should not henceforth live unto themselves, but unto him which died for them, and rose again. Wherefore henceforth know we no man after the flesh: yea, though we have known Christ after the flesh, yet now henceforth know we him no more. 2 Cor 5:15,16

 

This comment goes directly to what I've tried to get at.

If Christ was not eternally begotten, then the creeds and confessions are wrong. Well, you know what? They are wrong. The Roman Catholic Church invented a Christ far different from scripture because they lost sight of one teaching in scripture - there is a clear distinction between the spirit and body.

As soon as that distinction was lost, and Traducianism spawned, it started to get real hard to explain various scriptural dynamics. And every difficulty was met with yet another invented doctrine to try to help ease tension.

All the way to a polytheistic view of the Trinity. The Athanasian Creed states that there is ONE Eternal, not Three Eternals. Yet, almost all the confessions and creeds after that have 3 Coeternal "Persons"

And just as you've done, the constant appeal is to Creeds, Confessions, and a philosophical rhetoric - and not scripture

smh

 

And I also had a senior moment ascribing these verses to John, when it was Paul's first sermon.

Individual word's are important, and the word today and this day means exactly what it is meant to. Or 'this day' in the KJV - a particular day IN TIME, that the begetting took place, at His resurrection where Paul uses Psalm 2.7 to say it was fulfilled then.

1. This begetting in Psalm 2.7 is not eternal generation in eternity past or conception in Mary's womb.
2. Psalm 2.7 is describing the Lord's coronation and exaltation in heaven after His resurrection.
3. Jesus is the first begotten from the dead and the firstfruits of them (Rev 1:5, 1Cor 15:20), and this begetting from the dead at His resurrection declares Him to be the Son of God with power, as stated by Rom 1:4.
4. Ps 2.7 is also quoted in Hebrews 1:5 and is applied to His exaltation (Heb 1.4). Psalm 2.7 is fulfilled by apostolic authority in Christ's resurrection.

 

It is my opinion, correct or not, that when we attempt to reconcile the terms used to describe the nature of the Triune Godhead we all jump in over our head. John Dagg in his Manual of Theology makes this point as follows:

The 1646 revision of the 1644Baptist Confession describes the Triune nature of the Godhead as well as can, in my opinion, be described. Note first the 1644 language and the change or correction made in the 1646 Version:

Now note carefully the improvement by omitting the underlined portion above {at least in my opinion} presented in the 1646 Version:

A comparison of the two is presented in the following:

http://gospelpedlar.com/articles/Ch...4-46 London Baptist Con_of_Faith_Layout 1.pdf

I would also note that Icon presents the best answer to the issue in the following brief post!

I am of course assuming that Icon does not include the human nature of Jesus Christ when he speaks of Him as Eternal God!

 

Dag man! John Dagg nails it. He was a remarkable man. Nearly blind, with a weak vice he had to give up preaching. But he persevered. Mark Dever gave a good lecture on his life.

Sorry, for getting off the subject. It's just that that man's life is deeply impressive. In his Manual of Theology he just references Scripture --nothing else.

The perfection of the Godhead --treading such holy ground.

 

I think it will be helpful if JamesL and NVSABL explain to us exact what their theory (theories?) is/are, so that we know what we're dealing with.

There is one eternal God in three coeternal persons. One What; three Whos. Are you proposing Sabellianism?

I hope the mods will keep a close watch on this thread.

 

Let us not forget that the opening of Genesis uses the plural form, so that it really reads:

"In the beginning God(s) made heaven and earth..."
and upon the day man was made, "Let us make man in our image."

The trinity was "in the beginning" just as it is now.

God is the "I Am" not the I was, or I appeared in various forms at various times.

I agree, I also hope the mods keep a close watch.

 

John Dagg was indeed a remarkable man as was his friend and brother in Jesus Christ, P. H. Mell!

 

OldRegular,
What do you mean by "human nature" ?

 

I used the term "human nature" in the following context:

Jesus Christ, the Incarnate God, is one person with two natures, the "human nature" from the Virgin Mary in fulfillment of Scripture, and the Divine nature. The "human nature", according to Scripture, consists of both the physical body and the "soul"!

Any further questions can probably be answered by the Chalcedon Creed if the Roman Catholic interpretation is ignored!

https://carm.org/christianity/creeds-and-confessions/chalcedonian-creed-451-ad

 

So....and I'm merely asking....
Considering that the soul is personality, rationale, will, emotions, memory, etc.,

Do you think Jesus has two souls? One human soul and one divine soul?
Or maybe God had no ability to think until the Incarnation of Christ?

Piece it together please?

You still didn't define "human nature"

 

I gave you a reference to the Chalcedon Creed which explains the Incarnate God, Jesus Christ, or Jesus the Messiah, much better than I can.

I can only assume you are being facetious! Certainly you cannot be that Biblically illiterate. Certainly you will not blaspheme GOD!

The nature of GOD and the incarnation cannot be "pieced together"!

Yes I did!

Now please answer a question for me and perhaps we can continue the conversation: Do you believe the following about the ONE TRUE GOD?

Deuteronomy 6:4. Hear, O Israel: The LORD our God is one LORD:

And: