BT: A great resource for this discussion is T. F. Torrance. Are you
familiar with him? In case you are not, he is a Scottish theologian, who
taught for many years at the University of Edinburgh. He is currently 91
years old. Torrance has researched this topic more than anyone in recent
times. In his great little book The Mediation of Christ, he
introduces his handling of the Incarnation with these words: "Perhaps the
most fundamental truth we need to learn in the Christian Church, or rather
relearn since we have suppressed it, is that the Incarnation was the coming of
God to save us in the heart of our fallen and depraved
humanity, where humanity is at its wickedest in its enmity and violence
against the reconciling love of God.
JT: Mr. Torrance's
language tells me he is a misguided Calvinist and when one begins with a
faulty premise......
BT: And your language tells me that you haven't been doing much reading of
late :)
JT: Wrong I do a lot of reading
Bill, just not in the works of Presbyterian theologians.
BT: Yes, Torrance is a Scottish
Presbyterian, and, yes, he has a tremendous regard for John Calvin. But he is
no "Calvinist." In point of fact, he has devoted many decades to
researching and then rebutting the Federalist tendancies of Calvinism. More to
your interest, I suspect, he rejects the doctrine of Limited Atonement, and
has written extensively on this subject; moreover he has enlightened
generations of Christians to the truth that Calvin no where taught a doctrine
of Limited Atonement. Are you relieved to hear this? By the way, how does
Torrance's language tell you he is a misguided Calvinist? You are surely not
saying that "Calvinism" is the true premise, are you?
JT: No Bill, the true premise is the Word of God.
We once attended a Presbyterian Church and so I've struggled through
their Calvinistic doctrine in the past. Calvin meant well but he is not the
light and it is sad to see ppl camped in his light rather than following
the light of the world.
BT: That is to say, the Incarnation is to be understood as the coming of God to take upon himself our fallen human nature,
our actual human existence laden with sin and guilt, our humanity diseased in
mind and soul in its estrangement or alienation from the Creator. This
is a doctrine found everywhere in the early Church in the first five
centuries, expressed again and again in the terms that the
whole man had to be assumed by Christ if the whole man was to be saved,
that the unassumed is unhealed, or that what God has not
taken up in Christ is not saved" (39).
JT: where is
this in scripture?
BT: I have yet to make a biblical argument. The point I do
want to make is that it is my comments, which are now historical, concerning
historical beliefs that has you, dare I say, somewhat less than at your best?
If history doesn't really matter, why are you so rattled?
JT: What makes you say I am rattled and
somewhat less than my best Bill? Actually I like history ATST I am aware
that it is constantly revised and that history concerning war is written
by the winner with a decided slant in their own favor so I
don't take it to heart or receive it as truth as I do the Word of God which is
written by the Spirit of Truth even though some of it may be so.
I don't see God in the flesh becoming
fallen and depraved until he hung on the cross at Calvary and it was
at this point that God hid his face.
BT: Okay, I'll take the bait. Where do you find this stated in
Scripture?
JT: I'm not baiting you Bill, just stating what I
understand from scripture which is that Jesus the man became fallen and
depraved from the 6th to the 9th hour; which is when the light of
the world went out and darkness covered the earth (Matt 27:45, Mark
15:33); he cried "My God, my God, why hast thou forsaken me" because
for the first time ever he had become separated from the Father
because of OUR SIN.
BT: After establishing the historicity of these beliefs and
attaching their origin to the writings of the
Apostles, he (Mr. Torrance) then goes on to state, "before long in the fourth century there began a revolt against the idea that
Christ took our fallen humanity including our depraved mind upon himself in
order to redeem it from within. Thus there developed especially in Latin
theology from the fifth century a steadily growing rejection of the fact that
it was our alienated, fallen, and sinful humanity that the Holy Son of God
assumed, and there was taught instead the idea that it was humanity in
its perfect original state that Jesus took over from the Virgin Mary....
JT: So the good professor attached or added his
thesis to the writings of the apostles? By the 2nd century the
professing Church had gone off into the apostasy Jesus and the apostles warned
of. We are not to look to history to lead
us into all truth, this is why Jesus sent us the Holy Spirit ...
BT: Nor do I claim that history can lead us into all truth. I do think,
however, that in leading us to all truth the Holy Spirit can lead us to
historical truth. What do you think? Is the Spirit mute in everything except
for the illumination of Scripture?
JT: The other spirit can lead us to some
places also. The Holy Spirit works
in concert with the Word of God which he inspired from the beginning and
he points to Jesus (the real one that is) "Howbeit
when he the Spirit of truth is come, he will guide you into all truth, for he
shall not speak of himself but whatsoever he shall hear that shall he speak
and he will shew you things to come. He shall glorify me for he shall receive
of mine and shall shew it unto you" (John 16:13,14); this tells me that
we need to understand what he has already written before we go looking to
other sources. The teaching of scripture is that Jesus is the "eternally
begotten Son of God" as well as the "only begotten Son of God" -
Modern translations such as the (RSV, NIV, NEB
and others) dilute key verses like John 3:16 by changing "only begotten son"
to "only son" which makes the Bible contradict itself. Jesus was not the
only son of God. (a) Adam was a son (Lk 3:38) (b) Angels are sons (Job
1:6) (c) All believing Christians are sons (Jn 1:12). But
Jesus is the "only begotten" Son of God
which makes Him different. The Greek word is monogenes which clearly
means "only generated" and this word is used only 6x in the NT. Five
times referring to Jesus and once in Hebrews 11:17 where it refers to Isaac as
Abraham's "only begotten son" indicating that he is a type of Christ (a son of
promise). 1 John 1:14 says God sent his only begotten son into the
world indicating that he was God's only begotten son BEFORE he
came into the world.
BT: I have no disagreement with anything you say here.
JT: When was he
begotten?
BT: The Son was eternally begotten of the Father. But the Son was not
always Jesus; i.e., he was not always Incarnate. The Word became flesh (Jn
1.14). He became something which he was not before, which he was not from
eternity: He became flesh. Do you agree with me? I would
like to suggest that you look into the biblical connotations of sarx
-- Gr. for flesh. In the NT sarx is a loaded term. Check it
out. I think John probably knew what he was doing when he chose this
term over other less loaded language like, for instance, soma, which
means body or person, in today's sense of personhood. Check it out and let me
know what you discover.
JT: I'm familiar with the meaning of the word
flesh, sarx in Gr. #4561 in Strongs which is defined as physical and moral
frailty or carnal nature with appetites. Why do you call it a
"loaded term?"
BT: It seems to me that Christians should be able and willing to ask
the question, What has happened to influence my thinking in this area? Why did
early Christians accept this teaching, when I am unable even to consider it?
JT: I don't know
who these "early Christians" are but they are not apostles or this concept
could be seen in both gospels and epistles; also it would have been
prophesied in the OT and there would be no need for a "virgin
birth"
BT: Well, interestingly, one of the first hints at this doctrine is found
in OT prophecy and at the same time in the context of the virgin birth:
"Therefore the Lord Himself will give you a sign: Behold, the virgin shall
conceive and bear a Son, and shall call His name Immanuel. Curds and honey He
shall eat, that He may know to refuse the evil and choose the
good. For before the Child shall know to refuse the evil and choose
the good, the land that you dread will be forsaken by both her kings" (Isa
7.14-16 NJV). Tell me, Judy, Was there ever a time in your Jesus' life that he
did not know to refuse evil?
JT: The child who ate the milk and curds and who
would see the demise of two kings before he could be taught to discern between
good and evil was the son of Isaiah ShearJashub referred to in Isa 7:3. Verse
14 is the only one in Isa Chapter 7 that is Messianic. I don't know for
sure whether or not my Jesus was ever "confused" but I doubt it. I do
know that he grew and waxed strong in spirit, was filled with wisdom, and the
grace of God was upon him; at the age of 12 he was found sitting in the midst
of the doctors at the temple both hearing them and asking questions and all
who heard him were astonished at his understanding and answers - so in
light of this - no I don't believe he
was confused...
BT: Why the virgin birth? because a human father cannot be the Heavenly
Father. Only a virgin birth could stand as proof that Mary had conceived of
the Spirit.
JT: And why was it important for Mary to conceive
of the Spirit if her child was to take upon himself our
fallen human nature, our actual human existence laden with sin and guilt, our
humanity diseased in mind and soul in its estrangement or alienation from the
Creator?. Natural generation from Adam on would
have taken care of this. The
preacher wrote in Ecc 1:9 that there is no new thing under the sun which is
now even recognized as a scientific law and this includes the work of human
reproduction. However because of man's sin God began the work he had foretold
in ancient times which included a promise that "the seed of the woman"
(Gen 3:15) would come someday to accomplish a work of reconciliation and since
all normal reproduction requires the male seed such a
miracle would mean God would have to create a new thing (prophesied in
Isa 7:14; 9:6-7and Jer 31:22). God
would create, by His mighty power, a new thing, a perfect human body, without
inherited sin or physical blemish, and with no contribution from either male
or female, in the womb of a specially called virgin.
BT: Why do you say that there was no contribution from female? I can
understand why you say no contribution from male, but wasn't the virgin his
biological mother? Wasn't it she who conceived and gave birth to a Son?
Wasn't he "made of Woman"?
JT: He wasn't made of the woman in the
genealogical sense - he had no inheritance in the first Adam after the fall.
His blood was pure and holy and He was a perfect sacrifice without spot or
blemish. Bill, if you can show me in the
scriptures where I am missing it, I will be glad to pray about it and
reconsider. However, IMO it is a waste of time to try and
understand truth by way of what different persons or groups think about
this and that, even well meaning theologians can be wrong. Only God's
Word endures.
Grace and Peace,
Judy
