When He came as the Angel of the Lord in the OT, was not Jesus there, correct?
Question on Paedobaptism
- Thread starter JesusIsLord
- Start date
- Status
OPC'n
Puritan Board Doctor
Scott Bushey
Puritanboard Commissioner
That is correct...
You earlier said:
"Before he became Human and dwelt among us, he was not Jesus of Nazareth though"
So, I'm a bit confused as both statements contradict each other...
SeanPatrickCornell
Puritan Board Junior
So you do agree that paedobaptism began during NT times!
Hah. No. Not even remotely.
the man Jesus was physically born into History, and at that point moving forward, the Second person of the Godhead was both fully God and fully Man, but before that, He existed as "just " God Himself. His name would not have been Jesus, but God/Yahweh.
Ask Mr. Religion
Flatly Unflappable
I would caution the use of the phrase "the man Jesus was physically born..." as it often leads to confusion about the Person, Our Lord Jesus Christ. The humanity of Our Lord was not an individuated humanity. That humanity would not exist without the assumption of it by the Second Person of the Trinity.
Always worth a read:
https://www.desiringgod.org/articles/anhypostasis-what-kind-of-flesh-did-Jesus-take
https://www.desiringgod.org/articles/enhypostasis-what-kind-of-flesh-did-the-word-become
The very Person in the OT who came atimes as the Angel of the Lord had now came as Jesus, and thus forever would be the God/Man, fully God and fully Man.
He is the same Person....
Ask Mr. Religion
Flatly Unflappable
Let me test your understanding a wee bit, David.
Is the second person of the Trinity now a God-man with a glorified body that is omnipresent?
Gforce9
Puritan Board Junior
In earlier posts, you labored hard there was no "person" before the Incarnation. In this post, you assert the "person" in the O.T. is the same as Jesus.
WOW!......just wow.....
The same as in being the person of God in both OT/NT times. Before the Incarnation though, He was not known as being Jesus.
Ask Mr. Religion
Flatly Unflappable
So wherever the Second Person of the Trinity is present (which is everywhere), He is present with a glorified body?
RefPres1647
Puritan Board Freshman
"What if not just our ladies (typically) but all of us took a last name only when we got married? That's when we figured out who we "belonged" with, when we made that "choice," and took a vow. This would not typically be because of any "negative attitude.""
---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
I'm not going to debate or argue because you are obviously much more well trained in theological matters than I am, but your quotes about the changing of names in marriage kind of hit me.
At birth, a woman is born to a name that she may or may not be destined to keep. Then love finds her in a husband who wants her to take his name and she gladly does it because of her love and obedience to him.
Can't we say that about a newly converted Christian? We are born to a spiritually dead, sinful nature and we are destined for destruction until God brings us to life and we as the bride of Christ love Him and gladly take His name out of love and obedience.
A Presbyterian sees the Christian as a child given a name (sign and seal in Baptism) to their Father (in hopes that they come to faith), while a baptist sees the woman who is sought out in love and grateful for that love (not that she chose it, but responded after being given the ability to love), takes the name (obedience in Baptism).
I'm know your analogy was meant for something completely different, but I couldn't help throwing this out there when I saw your marriage quote. I'm definitely not trying to argue because, again, I am not in any way trained enough to have a thorough baptistic debate with anyone, this was just an observation.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
I'm not going to debate or argue because you are obviously much more well trained in theological matters than I am, but your quotes about the changing of names in marriage kind of hit me.
At birth, a woman is born to a name that she may or may not be destined to keep. Then love finds her in a husband who wants her to take his name and she gladly does it because of her love and obedience to him.
Can't we say that about a newly converted Christian? We are born to a spiritually dead, sinful nature and we are destined for destruction until God brings us to life and we as the bride of Christ love Him and gladly take His name out of love and obedience.
A Presbyterian sees the Christian as a child given a name (sign and seal in Baptism) to their Father (in hopes that they come to faith), while a baptist sees the woman who is sought out in love and grateful for that love (not that she chose it, but responded after being given the ability to love), takes the name (obedience in Baptism).
I'm know your analogy was meant for something completely different, but I couldn't help throwing this out there when I saw your marriage quote. I'm definitely not trying to argue because, again, I am not in any way trained enough to have a thorough baptistic debate with anyone, this was just an observation.
Solparvus
Puritan Board Senior
"What if not just our ladies (typically) but all of us took a last name only when we got married? That's when we figured out who we "belonged" with, when we made that "choice," and took a vow. This would not typically be because of any "negative attitude.""
---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
I'm not going to debate or argue because you are obviously much more well trained in theological matters than I am, but your quotes about the changing of names in marriage kind of hit me.
At birth, a woman is born to a name that she may or may not be destined to keep. Then love finds her in a husband who wants her to take his name and she gladly does it because of her love and obedience to him.
Can't we say that about a newly converted Christian? We are born to a spiritually dead, sinful nature and we are destined for destruction until God brings us to life and we as the bride of Christ love Him and gladly take His name out of love and obedience.
A Presbyterian sees the Christian as a child given a name (sign and seal in Baptism) to their Father (in hopes that they come to faith), while a baptist sees the woman who is sought out in love and grateful for that love (not that she chose it, but responded after being given the ability to love), takes the name (obedience in Baptism).
I'm know your analogy was meant for something completely different, but I couldn't help throwing this out there when I saw your marriage quote. I'm definitely not trying to argue because, again, I am not in any way trained enough to have a thorough baptistic debate with anyone, this was just an observation.
A good spirit of humility
Changing your analogy just a bit...
What if God calls that baby to be His own and gives them a name first?
That’s what God did with Israel in circumcision and making them Abraham’s children (Gn 17 “to be God to you and your offspring after you”). God is everyone’s God, but is Israel’s God in an unique way that He isn’t for others, and circumcision marked that claim. It’s what we believe God does in bringing a child in the world to Christian parents. Baptism is not saying that they are regenerated, but He claims them as His own in a way He hasn’t others.
Last edited:
RefPres1647
Puritan Board Freshman
Thanks!A good spirit of humility
Changing your analogy just a bit...
What if God calls that baby to be His own and gives them a name first?
That’s what God did with Israel in circumcision and making them Abraham’s children (Gn 17 “to be God to you and your offspring after you”). God is everyone’s God, but is Israel’s God in an unique way that He isn’t for others, and circumcision marked that claim. It’s what we believe God does in bringing a child in the world to Christian parents. Baptism is not saying that they are regenerated, but He claims them as His own in a way He hasn’t others.
And that's why I didn't think the analogy was perfect because it is either a child or a bride if you get my jist. It all really depends on how one views the covenants.
He would have to be , As Jesus retains for all eternity the same risen Body that was glorified when He was resurrected from the grave.
Gforce9
Puritan Board Junior
It would be beneficial to review the creed of Chalcedon, where it is clearly stated that each nature "retains its own attributes". Omnipresense is an attribute of the divine nature and not of the human. Your stated view is the same view that allows Rome to have multiple sacrifices across the world at the same time. This is errant and violates Chalcedon, at least.....
Jesus "physical" Body is right now in heaven seated at the throne of God, and yet His Divine Being/Person is also throughout all creation. How he can do that I do not fully understand, but accept it as being the truth.
Ask Mr. Religion
Flatly Unflappable
Your first quote above is contrary to the teachings that the Lord's physical body is not present at the Supper. Unless you are now a Lutheran, I urge you to study the matter more fully.
See #170 at:
http://files.puritanboard.com/confessions/wlc.htm#166
Your second quote is a wee bit more proper, unless you still maintain that the glorified body accompanies the omnipresence of God. The quote also seems to imply you distinguish that this {glorified} "body" present on the throne is not an the actual Person of Our Lord.
So which is it, David?
Jesus is right now seated in Heaven in His glorified bodily Form, but He also is at the same time omnipresent throughout His creation, as He is God.
Gforce9
Puritan Board Junior
This sounds Nestorian.
Which would be?
Jesus is in heaven in His glorified Body, as in being a Man, but also throughout creation, as being also in the very form/Person of God.
Gforce9
Puritan Board Junior
Tried and found wanting heresy, ala Chalcedon
Ask Mr. Religion
Flatly Unflappable
David,
Did you follow the links in my earlier post:
https://www.puritanboard.com/threads/question-on-paedobaptism.95023/page-5#post-1161289
The very first embedded link points you to this:
https://www.puritanboard.com/threads/question-on-Jesus’-impeccability.94819/#post-1157236
As you can see Nestorianism is clearly shown and denounced.
After the earlier postings on this issue, I did go back to one of my ST books and looked up Nestorianism, and did see how the views I was giving could see to be getting close to what that heresy held with the person of Jesus.
My view would be that Jesus is but One Person, who within Him are the natures of both fully God and Fully man.
greenbaggins
Puritan Board Doctor
The extra Calvinisticum needs to be put into play here. Christ's human and divine natures are never separate. However, as God, Jesus is present according to His divine nature everywhere. Therefore, the divine nature extends beyond (not alongside) the human nature. This is the extra Calvinisticum. Nestorianism would claim that the two natures are separate, whereas we would say they are distinct yet inseparable. Wherever Christ's limited human body is, there is the full God-man. The human nature is not omnipresent. However, the divine nature is. We have to be very careful here, or we will wind up divorcing human from divine, as the Nestorians do, or else limiting the divine, which is what the Eutychians did.
Gforce9
Puritan Board Junior
Excellent, Lane! It is my belief every Christian should memorize the Chalcedonian creed.
What view would it be, that I do not hold with, that sees Jesus as having 2 natures, but basically kept bouncing back and forth between them, so He could say did not know the time or hour, and then later on know the very thoughts of the Pharisees?
greenbaggins
Puritan Board Doctor
Hmm, I'm not sure if the view you describe has a name, but it is close to Nestorianism, because alternation of natures is very close to division of natures. It is a bizarre view that you describe. I guess if I had the somewhat dubious honor of naming it, I should call it the "toggle switch" heresy.
- Status
Similar threads
