(Bill) You write in
part:
This is not a new teaching; indeed the
early Church was quite comfortable with it. It was only late in the formative centuries of the Church that it came
under attack. You seem to have a real good grasp of the Scriptures in this
area. I am writing to assure you that history is on your side as
well.
Judy:
I'd like you to show me where this is in
scripture Wm. If it is in there as you claim. I've yet to see
it.
BT: Be careful, Judy, I did not
make any claims about Scripture here. Any Scriptural claims to this point are
made by David; of course this could only be known by knowing the historical
context within which David's claims were made. I simply complemented him on
his grasp of what the Bible teaches in regards to his thesis.
Bill:
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.
Judy:
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 :) 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?
Bill:
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).
Judy:
Then where is it in scripture?
BT:
Again, Judy, aren't you jumping the gun a little
bit here. If you will look at my thesis statement, I told David that I was
writing to assure him that history was on his side. To this point, it seems to
me that your grievance, if indeed you have one, is with David. I'll get to my
beliefs soon enough. Until then, 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?
Judy:
I don't find 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?
Bill:
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....
Judy:
We are not to depend on 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?
Judy:
This is the teaching of scripture ...
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.
Judy:
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.
Bill:
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?
Judy:
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?
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.
Judy:
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"?
Judy:
This is why I believe the way I do 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.
BT:
Judy, I know you mean well. Let us take this
slowly.
Sincerely,
Bill Taylor
