Was Jesus fully man before the incarnation?

[beloved57]

Was Jesus fully man before the incarnation?

Yes He was, He both God and Man before the Creation, because He was the Mediator, the Man Christ Jesus before creation 1 tim 2:

5For there is one God, and one mediator between God and men, the man Christ Jesus;

You see, Mary did not make him the Mediator, that was a Office He sustained and was given before the world began ! See Jn 17:5

 

[beloved57]

Was Jesus fully man before the incarnation?

Yes, For He was the God Man Medaitor Christ Jesus before the incarnation 1 tim 2:

5For there is one God, and one mediator between God and men, the man Christ Jesus;

Ever since there has been men [adam] there was been a Mediator, Christ Jesus ! Now of course He then existed in the form of God [phil 2:5] and had not yet taken on flesh and blood.

 

[hardcore]

Ever since there has been men [adam] there was been a Mediator, Christ Jesus ! Now of course He then existed in the form of God [phil 2:5] and had not yet taken on flesh and blood.

If Jesus hadn't taken on flesh and blood, then he wasn't fully a man!

It seems to me from all this, that Jesus has always existed as a member of the trinity (and therefore as mediator for mankind), but did not fully become man till he was conceived in Mary.
He now continues to exists as that same full man in the Father's presence and will continue to do so forever.

 

[John Zain]

sorry

 

[cajunhillbilly]

The Nicene Creed says "He was incarnate by the Holy Spirit of the Virgin Mary and was MADE man". Before the incarnation He was the Second Person of the Trinity but NOT man. That is why He had to be incarnate in these Last Days. He added to His divine Person the nature of man and became forever the God-Man and mediator of the eternal covenant. Oh and for my fellow Calvinist of a few posts before, read Calvin's Institutes. He said the same thing, as does the Westminster Confession and other Reformed confessions.

 

[Simonline]

John 1:1 makes reference to Christ as the logos, or that which was God eternally.

No, he doesn't. John makes reference to the Logos existing as the Logos who then went on to incarnate as the Messiah/Christ (Jn.1:14). Unlike most of the 21st century Church the apostle John is not so metaphysically confused.

The logos timelessly co - existed with the Father equally in spirit, not in physical form, hence why the incarnation is God becoming man in the flesh.

Correction, the Logos, as the Second Person of the Infinite-Tri-Personal Divine Creator, YHWH, eternally co-exists [i.e. Eternally] as discarnate Divine Creator, along with the Father and the Holy Spirit, even whilst He alone also exists [temporally - i.e. within the Created Order] as incarnate human creature (Isa.43:10-13; Matt.1:23).

The eternal spirit precedes the finite flesh.

This is not in despute. What is in despute is the oft reference by far too many Christians (such as your opening statement of this post) of the human creature Jesus of Nazareth as existing eternally (?!) an absurd metaphysical impossibility?!

I think it would be a metaphysical mistake to say that the logos was fully man prior to the incarnation, not to mention a total distortion of the doctrine.

I concur. It would be a complete metaphysical mistake to say that prior to the incarnation the Son/Logos was in any way human since that simple wouldn't be true.

Simonline.

 

[Simonline]

Jesus was "conceived" of a father and a mother. (Not "incarnated".)

Not true. The Person of the Son as Divine Creator exists as Eternal whilst as human creature He exists as temporal. The Scriptures declare that the Messiah was not conceived in the conventional way by a human father and mother but was a miraculous conception directly brought about within the virgin Mary by God Himself (Lk.1:26-38).

That is when His life began. No he didn't live as a "physical man" prior to that. Nor is He now a "physical man". That is bad doctrine.

Also not true. His life as a human creature began at His conception within Mary but this is entirely distinct [NOT separate] from His already extant existence as the Eternal Divine Creator. Whilst you are correct in asserting that the Son did not exist as a finite human creature prior to His conception within Mary you are wrong in asserting that the Messiah ceased to be a finite human creature once He had ascended into Heaven. The apostle Paul declared 'For there is one God and one mediator between God and men - the man Christ Jesus.' (1Tim.2:5). Paul declared this after the ascension of the Messiah and in the present not past tense.

The Messiah remains as a resurrected finite human creature forever (Heb.13:8). Somehow this enables Him to remain in existence as a finite human creature irrespective of His location whether in Heaven or on Earth. The amazing thing is that as believers once we have also been resurrected we will have the same ability (1Cor.15:35-58)

The "Christing" by which He became our "Christ" occurred at His baptism.

Again, not true. The human creature Jesus of Nazareth was the Messiah/Christ from His conception onwards. Jesus of Nazareth was/is not a regular and therefore sinful human creature (Rom.3:9-18) that God just arbitrarily decided to 'adopt' and make into 'the Lamb of God who takes away the sin of the world'?! That is just theological nonsense.

The reason why the Messiah is not included with Adam and the rest of the human race (Rom.3:9-18; 5:12-21) as sinful is precisely because of Who He is (i.e. YHWH Himself incarnate as a human creature).

Another reason why the Messiah could not possibly have been 'adopted' as 'the Lamb of God' is because that would make God into a murderer. The Scriptures declare that murder is sin (Ex.20:13). They also declare that the Messiah was executed not because it was what the Jews or the Romans (i.e. Gentiles) wanted (which it was but that is incidental) but rather because it was what God Himself wanted (Isa.53:10(a); Jn.10:17-18). If the Messiah is NOT YHWH Himself incarnate as a man (contrary to what the Scriptures declare (Isa.43:10-13; Matt.1:23; Titus.2:13)) then that means that YHWH is a murderer for unlawfully depriving an innocent man of his life in order (supposedly?!) to atone for the sins of the world (1Jn.2:2)?!

Christ is from everlasting to evelasting. Christ came into Jesus, who became our Christ. One. Our Messiah in the flesh for 33 years.

This is utterly false. It is New Age doctrine but it is wholely unbiblical. There is no such thing as 'the Christ spirit' which somehow adopted through possession (i.e. demon possession) the regular [i.e. sinful] human creature Jesus of Nazareth and turned him into 'the Lamb of God' in order that he might be crucified for the sin of the world?! This goes against everything that is declared throughout the Judeo-Christian Scriptures concerning the Messiah (Lk.24:25-27) as anyone who bothers to seriously study the Scriptures would know?!

As the Scriptures declare the Messiah is YHWH Himself incarnate as a the man Jesus of Nazareth (Isa.43:10-13; Matt.1:23; Titus.2:13). His conception as the human creature was miraculous precisely because of Who He is Eternally [i.e. Divine Creator (Jn.10:30-33)] which always takes precedence over Who He is temporally [i.e. human creature (Jn.14:28)]

God manifestation amongst us is a mystery to many.

A total mystery to you by all accounts?!

But it is given to us to know. By receiving His resurrected and glorified Holy Spirit.

What utter metaphysical tripe?! The Holy Spirit (i.e. the Third Person of the Infinite-Tri-Personal Divine Creator YHWH) has NEVER incarnated as a human creature, has NEVER lived as an incarnate human creature, has certainly NEVER been crucified as an incarnate human creature and has NEVER been resurrected as an incarnate human creature either so how could we possibly receive a 'resurrected' Holy Spirit?!

Clearly, you obviously don't know because you have never studied the Scriptures and, more importantly, allowed God to speak to you through His Scriptures. It is obvious that you have instead started from your own theological presuppositions and then scoured the Scriptures looking for texts that might seem to support your own erroneous theological presuppositions. This is NOT the way to study the Scriptures (2Tim.2:15).

He was slain from the "foundation of the world" is directly referring to the New Heavens and New Earth.

Nonsense! It is referring to the fact that the solution was set before the problem. In other words God had the answer ready even before Adam and Eve fell (Gen.3). The solution was set in Eternity before the Creation ever came into being. This is how/why God was able to prophesy redemption to Eve (Gen.3:15).

Jesus was slain immediately prior to the foundation of the New world Heavenly Jerusalem, of which Temple we are Born from above in Him, Sons of God, as living stones built upon the foundation of Jesus Himself that we read of in the Gospels.

This may be true but it doesn't alter the fact that when the Sciptures refer to the Messiah as being slain 'from before the foundation of the world' they are referring to this present world and not to any new Heaven or Earth

That is totally what it means Cool huh!

I don't think so...

Simonline.

 

[Simonline]

The traditional distinction between the hypostasis and the natures needs to kept in mind. The hypostasis, or person of Jesus didn't change through the incarnation; he added a human nature to his divine nature.

Wirth respect the term hypostasis refers to how the single Person of the Son can simultaneously exist as Divine Creator [YHWH] and human creature [Jesus of Nazareth]. There is no distinction between the hypostasis and the natures. Instead the distinction is between the two natures (which is what the hypostasis is all about).

Furthermore, Jesus of Nazareth is not the one who incarnated. It was the Son/Word [i.e. the Second Person of the Infinite-Tri-Personal Divine Creator, YHWH] Who incarnated and in doing so came into existence as the human creature Jesus of Nazareth. Also the human nature was not added to the Divine Nature. The Divine Nature is both Infinite and Immutable so the human nature could not have been added to it. It was the Person rather than the Nature Who came into existence as a second temporal nature and so the human nature was subsumed (not incorporated) into the Godhead.

A hypostasis is a consciousness which thinks, perceives, and reacts, in a relatively stable way.

Relative to what exactly?

The prefix hypo means 'below' ( as in 'hypodermic (i.e. below the skin) needle') and the term stasis (as in 'Anastasia ('again living' i.e. resurrection NOT reincarnation)') means 'life' or 'living'. Thus the term hypostasis relates to how the Messiah simultaneously exists as both Infinite Divine Creator and finite human creature.

A nature is something like the state of being in which a class of things exist.

This is not true of YHWH Who exists as a single entity albeit a Tri-Personal One?

If we were to talk about a plant nature, this would simply mean the category-of-living as a plant.

Nature relates to the way in which [or how] something exists.

Simonline.

 

[Simonline]

I have the Mind of Christ. Not adoptionism, not gnosticism.

Oh no you dont! If you actually knew the Scriptures then you would know that it is the Church/Body collectively that has the mind of Christ and not each and every individual believer (1Cor.2:6-16). This is why some believers end up rejecting the truth in favour of following doctrines of demons (1Tim.4:1-2; Jude.1:3-16).

The type is engraved deeply in scripture. [Isaac] was Abraham's son by Sarah. A miracle yes, but, not sufficient to be Blessed of God as a son of Abraham. Neither was Christ. Neither are we.

What a load of utter tosh! Isaac was indeed blessed of God as the only son of Abraham (Gen.22:12), the son of the promise. God made His covenant with Abraham (Gen.15:1-21; 22:15-18), Isaac (Gen.26:24) and Jacob (Gen.28:10-22) not with Ishmael, Nebaioth, Kedar, Adbeel, Mibsam, Mishma, Dumah, Massa, Hadad, Tema, Jetur, Naphish or Kedemah (Gen.25:13-16).

Furthermore, the apostle Paul explicitly taught that the Messiah was the singular seed of Abraham to whom the promise was made and that 'in the Messiah' all believers whether Jew or Gentile are sons of Abraham as a direct result of our faith (Rom.4; Gal.3:1-4:7).

What you are saying is a direct contradiction of the Scriptures and therefore utter nonsense! I know whom I have believed and am persuaded that He is able to keep that which I've committed unto Him against that day...and it isn't you!

It wasn't until AFTER Abraham went to offer Him as a sacrifice, that God ratified the Covenant with Isaac as Abraham's son and the heir of the promises. See how that works?
The entire incident is for us with eyes to see and ears to hear, how that the Son of the Covenant can ONLY be Him raised from the dead.

That is why God pronounced Jesus as His Son at His baptism.

What warped reasoning?! The covenant was ratified with Isaac because of the complete faith of his father Abraham in being willing to sacrifice his one and only [promised] son. The covenant was made with Abraham, Isaac, Jacob and all who like Abraham put their faith in God in which case all true believers (be they Jew or Gentile) are included in the Messiah/Christ which, according to Paul (Gal.3:1-4:7), is the only way that we inherit the promised Holy Spirit (i.e. by being fully identified with the Messiah/Christ rather than trying to get the promise (i.e. the Holy Spirit) on our own merit).

The Messiah is the Father's Son from all Eternity not just from His baptism. God's public declaration of the Messiah's sonship at the comencement of the Messiah's public ministry was for our benefit not the Messiah's. God was announcing to the world that Jesus of Nazareth was the true Messiah and therefore people would be wise to place their trust in Him or suffer the consequences (Jn.3:36). He was NOT adopting the Messiah as His Son since the Messiah was already His Son from all Eternity (Jn.10:30).

No Bible student can argue against this simplicity in Christ.

I just have.

Unless of course, they've been drowned within men's doctrines of carnal re-arranging of facts. Introducing terms like "pre-existant" or "incarnation" or "hypostasis" and other worthless junk terms like that.

Yeah, right (2Cor.4:4)?!

Simonline.

 

[Simonline]

It may have been later used in that sense, but strands of gnosticism taught that Jesus did not become Christ or divine until His baptism.

Indeed.

Simonline.

 

[Simonline]

Jesus was pronounced God's son at His conception.

Luk 1:35And the angel answered and said unto her, The Holy Ghost shall come upon thee, and the power of the Highest shall overshadow thee: therefore also that holy thing which shall be born of thee shall be called the Son of God.

And just because you have a problem with terms like pre-existent, incarnation, or hypostasis does not invalidate their use. They are easily deduced from scripture. John speaks of Jesus' pre-existence in the very first verse and Jesus references His pre-existence with the Father since before the world was. Incarnation is again easily derived from the text because Jesus existed before His life as a physical being and therefore incarnated as Jesus of Nazareth. Hypostasis is a term that helps define the nature of Yahweh and Jesus coexisting in the same being as both man and God.

I would have phrased your last sentence very differently but yes, amen!

Simonline.

 

[Simonline]

Yes, those terms are invalidated by the very fact that
1) they are unscriptural
2) they promote a lie of a "pre-existent Jesus".

Typical cultish warped reasoning. Terms are not invalid simply because they are not found within the canon of Scripture. A term is only invalid if it contradicts what is declared in Scriptures not if it is consistent with what is declared in the Scriptures. I guarantee that your spiritual mentor didn't teach you that basic truth?!

The terms are valid because they deductively express what is already declared in the Scriptures.

Furthermore, the Scriptures do not declare that the human creature Jesus of Nazareth was pre-existent to his own conception and birth since that is sheer nonsense (as any half-wit would know). What the Scriptures declare is that the Infinite-Tri-Personal Divine Creator YHWH has incarnated as the human creature Jesus of Nazareth. This means that before coming into existence as the human creature Jesus of Nazareth (Jn.1:14) the Person of the Son/Word ALREADY EXISTED as the Infinite-Tri-Personal Divine Creator YHWH (Jn.1:1).

Now you can selectively ignore all the relevent Scriptures all you want but it will not change what is true one iota (Isa.40:6-8). This is what God has declared (1Jn.4:1-3) and you either believe it and live (Jn.5:24; 20:31) or reject it and die (Jn.3:36)...forever (Rev.20:10-15), the choice is yours?

Get rid of the terms, the lies disappear also.

No thanks. I have no desire to be turned into a mindless idiot by following the ludicrous teachings of some heretical cult.

God is Christ, Christ is God.

Only an imbecile would make such a statement. Any half-wit knows that the Divine Creator and a human creature are NOT synonymous! Apparently, you do not?

Jesus was CHRISTED at His baptism, making Him the Son of God by resurrection from the dead.

Meanwhile, back in the real world...

The Son/Word has been the Messiah since the moment of His conception and being baptised or crucified did absolutely nothing to change that, on the contrary, being baptized and crucified served only to confirm what was already true.

Yes, God anounced His Son at conception.

So you admit that what was conceived in Mary was the human incarnation of God Himself [i.e. the Son of God]? That being the case then how could Jesus of Nazareth have only become the Son of God through adoption at His baptism?

Then later He again anounced His son being called out of Egypt

Thus showing that this prophecy had a dual application since it originally applied to the entire nation of Israel when they came out of Egypt at the exodus (Ex.4:21-23; Hos.11:1). In both applications it demonstrates that God was working to redeem His people.

But Jesus the CHRIST was "Begotten" at the River of Jordon.

The reference to the Messiah's being begotten on that very day (i.e. the day of His baptism) is a quote from Psalm 2 (2:7-9) where God prophetically promises to take care of David's son after he (David) has gone the way of all flesh. Again this prophetic psalm has a dual application. Initially it referred to Solomon but it also referred to the Messiah both of whom were 'God's annointed' but in very different ways.

Now you see why you need to understand Abraham and Isaac's relationship? It will perfectly explain God's "Fathering" of Christ at His Resurrection from the dead As the Son of God.

Nonsense. The term 'Son of God' refers to the Messiah as the human incarnation of God Himself (Isa.43:10-13; Matt.1:23) and as such applies throughout His existence as a finite human creature (i.e. from His conception onwards). It has nothing to do with the Messiah being 'adopted' either from His baptism by John or from His resurrection. This is just sheer nonsense that has no basis in Scipture.

Of the flesh, Jesus was proclaimed the Son of David.
But at His resurrection, He was proclaimed the Son of God in the Spirit of Holiness.

(Rom 1:3) Concerning his Son Jesus Christ our Lord, which was made of the seed of David according to the flesh;
(Rom 1:4) And declared to be the Son of God with power, according to the spirit of holiness, by the resurrection from the dead:

See how that works?
easy huh! And no lying words needed to 'help explain'.

Talk about misquoting Scripture?!

What the Scriptures are actually declaring is that the proof of the Messiah's humanity is the fact that He is descended from King David and the proof of His Divinity is in the fact that He is the ONLY Person whose claims to be the human incarnation of God, God has vindicated by resurrecting Him (and Him alone) from the dead. There have been others who have claimed to be the human incarnation of God [Pharoah, Caesar etc.] and all of them are still dead.

Thus the Messiah was not declared to be the Son of God at the resurrection but because of the resurrection. In other words the resurrection was God's vindication of the Messiah and His exclusive claims concerning God, Himself and the rest of reality.

You definitely need to get back with the programme?!

Simonline.

 

[Simonline]

You have failed to show how these words are 'lying words'. I have shown they are merely terms to describe a scriptural truth. Jesus was begotten of God the moment He came to 'be'. God's annointing of His ministry did not suddenly change Him into Christ. I already provided ample scriptural proof that Jesus was both the Son and the Christ from way before His baptism. God's annointing of His public ministry does not change this fact. Jesus' resurrection was confirmation of a truth that already existed ie that He was the Son of God and the Christ. Again confirmation does not change the fact that He was both the Son of God and the Christ from His conception. If one were to follow your logic to its' conclusion ie God is Christ, Christ is God and that Jesus was 'Christed' at His baptism then what you essentially would be saying is that He became God at His baptism but God specifically said that no other God would ever be formed. Jesus was and is God and has always been God the Son since before the world was.

Why do we torture ourselves by seeking to reason with people who are manifestly not the least bit interested in discovering and living by the truth (2Cor.4:4)?! Still, I suppose it serves to hone our apologetical skills...let's press on rewardless (at least in this life)?

btw your last sentence is metaphysically absurd. The human creature Jesus of Nazareth is not and never has been God. It is the Infinite-Personal Divine Son/Word Who has incarnated as the finite human creature, Jesus of Nazareth, not vice versa. Let us state from the outset and for all time that Divinity is NOT humanity and humanity is NOT Divinity but the Son/Word simultaneously exists as both Infinite Divine Creator and finite human creature.


Simonline.

 

[Simonline]

It would be inaccurate to say that Christ existed as a human being prior to the Incarnation. However, there are some interesting thoughts some theologians have spoken about regarding the incarnation as more than just an historical event.

For example, I believe it's St. Irenaeus who said that even had Adam and Eve not fell, the Word would have still become flesh. The Incarnation, therefore, should not be understood simply as a response to sin, but as God's eternal purpose for mankind and creation being located in Christ who became flesh. "All things were created by Him and for Him".

There are various theological strains of thought and discussion regarding the complexity of the notions of Logos Ensarkos/Logos Asarkos, I don't really think I'm well read enough in that area of theology to make too many comments. But from at least some basic idea the issue involves the notion of the Incarnation being an intrinsic part of the Logos/Son; not just as an historical event but as an eternal reality (at least in some sense). Or, conversely, if this is not true. It's one of those areas of theology that, I think, can get exceptionally deep and rather complex.

-CryptoLutheran

The Incarnation at this stage is indeed YHWH's response to the Fall but let us not foget that YHWH knew the solution before the problem ever came about. That being said, the Scriptures also reveal that the entire Creation should eventually become as the Messiah is now, a reality that is simultaneously 'ensarkos' and 'asarkos'. Maybe this is the point toward which we are all moving...inexorably?!

Simonline.

 

[Simonline]

Yes He was, He both God and Man before the Creation, because He was the Mediator, the Man Christ Jesus before creation 1 tim 2:

5For there is one God, and one mediator between God and men, the man Christ Jesus;

You see, Mary did not make him the Mediator, that was a Office He sustained and was given before the world began ! See Jn 17:5

No, he wasn't. Prior to the Incarnation the Son/Word existed as the Infinite-Personal Divine Creator, YHWH but He did NOT exist as the finite human creature, Jesus of Nazareth.

The Messiah only became the mediator between God and men once He as a human creature had demonstrated His total obedience to His Father and, as the human creature Jesus of Nazareth, been glorified by His Father as a result. Only then could the Messiah act as mediator between God and men. Prior to this the Messiah could represent God to men but He could not represent men to God and therefore could not be a mediator (i.e. one who could represent both parties to each other).

Jn.17:5 refers to the Son/Word asking His Father to glorify Him with the glory which they both shared prior to the Son/Word's incarnation as a human creature. This has nothing to do with mediatorship. Mediatorship is a separate issue to that of the Father and the Son sharing the same glory.

Simonline.

 

[Simonline]

If Jesus hadn't taken on flesh and blood, then he wasn't fully a man!

Jesus didn't take on flesh and blood because he didn't exist except as flesh and blood (which is an integral part of what it means to be human (Heb.2:17)). It was the Infinite-Personal Divine Creator YHWH Who incarnated as the human creature, Jesus of Nazareth (Jn.1:1,14).

It seems to me from all this, that Jesus has always existed as a member of the trinity (and therefore as mediator for mankind), but did not fully become man till he was conceived in Mary.

Jesus of Nazareth is the Son/Word existing as the human creature. As such the Son/Word is both finite and temporal (within Time) and therefore is NOT Infinite and Eternal (without Time) - Jn.14:28; Heb.2:17.

The Son/Word existing as the Infinite-Personal Divine Creator is YHWH not Jesus of Nazareth. It is the Father, Son and Holy Spirit Who are the Three Persons of the One Infinite-Tri-Personal Divine Creator, YHWH.

As the Infinite Divine Creator [YHWH] the Son/Word is Divine but He is NOT human. In the same way as the finite human creature [Jesus of Nazareth] the Son/Word is human but He is NOT Divine. We should always be careful not confuse the ONE PERSON with the TWO distinct but NOT separate WAYS in which He exists.

He now continues to exists as that same full man in the Father's presence and will continue to do so forever.

Yes, since the Virgin Birth the Son will now forever remain in Existence as both the Infinite Divine Creator [YHWH] and the finite human creature [Jesus of Nazareth] - ONE PERSON simultaneously existing in TWO distinct but NOT separate WAYS as authentic Divine Creator and authentic human creature.

Simonline.

 

[Simonline]

The Nicene Creed says "He was incarnate by the Holy Spirit of the Virgin Mary and was MADE man". Before the incarnation He was the Second Person of the Trinity but NOT man. That is why He had to be incarnate in these Last Days. He added to His divine Person the nature of man and became forever the God-Man and mediator of the eternal covenant. Oh and for my fellow Calvinist of a few posts before, read Calvin's Institutes. He said the same thing, as does the Westminster Confession and other Reformed confessions.

Amen, and again Amen (though I'm not so sure about the endorsement of John Calvin and Reformed Theology)!

Simonline.

 

[cajunhillbilly]

Amen, and again Amen (though I'm not so sure about the endorsement of John Calvin and Reformed Theology)!

Simonline.

I was just pointing out that Calvin adhered to the historic and orthodox understanding of the incarnation and hypostatic union and NOT the view of the person who said they were Calvinists and believed Jesus was both God and man before the incarnation. I don't know what theology that is but it is NOT historic Reformed theology.

 

[Kaitlin08]

Wirth respect the term hypostasis refers to how the single Person of the Son can simultaneously exist as Divine Creator [YHWH] and human creature [Jesus of Nazareth]. There is no distinction between the hypostasis and the natures. Instead the distinction is between the two natures (which is what the hypostasis is all about).

snip

Well, that's a two month old post you quoted. I don't really remember what I said; looking back over it, I don't think I was wrong. The hypostasis is distinct from the natures, because they're not to be confounded. Jesus of Nazareth is the Logos, so it wasn't wrong for me to call him Jesus.

 

[Simonline]

I was just pointing out that Calvin adhered to the historic and orthodox understanding of the incarnation and hypostatic union and NOT the view of the person who said they were Calvinists and believed Jesus was both God and man before the incarnation. I don't know what theology that is but it is NOT historic Reformed theology.

Alas, John Calvin and his ilk (i.e. those who took their theology seriously and would have been absolutely horrified at what passes for 'Christian theology' today) are all long gone.

Far too many who name the name of Christ today have an apalling understanding of metaphysics and do not realise that to declare the human incarnation to be Divine is simply absurd. This demonstrates that they have put in neither the time nor the effort to truly understand Judeo-Christian theology.

Simonline.