So blessed by Pastor Tipton. A high view of Scripture is essential to the depth and practice of our faith. To quote (paraphrase) Pastor Tipton, a denial of these truths do not make them any less true….. Amen!
Concerning the claim at 54:21 that the Holy Spirit gives "new equipment" to the divine person of Jesus. How is that possible as the divine person of Jesus/Logos is coequal with the Holy Spirit and lacks nothing that the Holy Spirit has? Can a gift be given to a nature rather than to a person? Even if we assume that a nature can posses gifts rather than a person - how would the human nature need something from the Holy Spirit if it is one with the Logos? Wouldn't the Logos have already provided everything at the point of the incarnation?
The point put more precisely is that the Spirit gives gifts to the person of the incarnate Mediator with reference to the assumed humanity. The gifts are equipment to discharge the office as Mediator. Vos speaks, then, of "gifts to the human nature" of the Son as the human nature exists enhypostatically (RD 3, 56-60). The divine person simpliciter cannot undergo increase or decrease, but the divine person with reference to the enhypostatic human nature can be enriched, endowed, and equipped to discharge his duties as the Mediator.
Tell me if this sounds familiar to you at all. The humanity Jesus assumed was unfallen but not yet glorified. He assumed a natural body but was not given a spiritual body until his resurrection (I Cor.15:45). But the Spirit equipped him with all he needed to attain the spiritual body and resurrection. You can see Vos’ discussion of this especially on page 169 in the Pauline Eschatology. Feel free to follow up with any questions.
@@vanttil101 One cannot give gifts to a nature, only a person. If Jesus is a divine person how can he be wanting in anything? When you say //the Spirit equipped him with all he needed to attain the spiritual body and resurrection// are you saying the divine person who resurrected Jesus is not Himself, but rather the Holy Spirit? How can that be the case in light of John 10:18 "No one takes it from me, but I lay it down of my own accord. I have authority to lay it down and authority to take it up again. This command I received from my Father.” and John 2:19 Jesus answered, "Destroy this temple, and in three days I will raise it up again." Jesus says He is not merely one who was resurrected (like Lazurus) but is the very essence of resurrection itself. John 10:18 "Jesus said to her, 'I am the resurrection and the life. Whoever believes in me, though he die, yet shall he live,'" While Acts 2:24; Galatians 1:1 say it is by the Father "...Jesus Christ and God the Father, who raised him from the dead" (This is not a conflict if one holds Jesus was granted this privilege by the authority of the Father, with John 5:26 seemingly providing the basis for that position: "For as the Father has life in Himself, so also He has granted the Son to have life in Himself.")
@@wowaconiaHere are two quotes from Vos that I had in mind. “Let us now briefly survey the evidence found for this representation in the Epistles. 1 Cor. 15:42-49 contrasts the two bodies that belong to the preëschatological and the eschatological states successively. The former is characterized as ψυχικόν, the latter as πνευματικόν. This adjective Pneumatikon expresses the quality of the body in the eschatological state. Every thought of immaterialness, or etherealness or absence of physical density ought to be kept carefully removed from the term. Whatever in regard to such qualifications may or may not be involved; it is certain that such traits, if existing, are not described here by the adjective in question. In order to keep far such misunderstandings the capitalizing of the word ought to be carefully guarded both in translation and otherwise: πνευματικόν almost certainly leads on the wrong track, whereas Πνευματικόν, not only sounds a note of warning, but in addition points in the right direction positively. Paul means to characterize the resurrection-state as the state in which the Pneuma rules. That it rules signifies more particularly, that it impresses upon the body its three-fold characteristic of ἀφθαρσία, δόξα and δύναμις (vss. 42, 43). Over against this stands the psychical body, which in order of time precedes the soma Pneumatikon. The former for its part is characterized by φθορά, ἀτιμία and ἀσθενεία. The passage is unique even in the long register of the high mysteries of the faith with Paul, in that it contrasts not the body affected by sin, not the body as it came to exist as a result of the entrance of evil into the world, with the future body, but the primordial body of Adam (“the First Adam”) and the body of the consummation. The proximate reference is to the contrast between the two bodies only; but in vs. 46 the representation widens out to a far more general, indeed a cosmical one. In the all-comprehensive antithesis there established by the principle: “that is not first which is τὸ Πνευματικόν, but that is first which is τὸ ψυχικόν, then that which is τὸ Πνευματικόν”, this is expressed by the contrast ἐκ γῆς and ἐξ οὐρανοῦ. When it is affirmed that the Second Man is from heaven, this has nothing to do with the original provenience of Christ from heaven; the “from heaven” does not necessarily imply a “coming from heaven,” any more than the opposite “from earth” implies a coming of Adam from the earth at the first creation. To refer “from heaven” to the coming of Christ out of the state of preëxistence at his incarnation would make Paul contradict himself, for it would reverse the order insisted upon in vs. 46; not the “Pneumatic” is first, but the “psychical.” Besides this it would make the Pneumatic the constituent principle of the human nature in Christ before the resurrection, of which there is no trace elsewhere with Paul. The phrase “from heaven” simply expresses that Christ after a supernatural fashion became the Second Man at the point marked by ἔπειτα. A “becoming” is affirmed of both Adams, the second as well as the first, for the verb ἐγένετο in vs. 45 belongs to both clauses. How far in either case the subject of which this is affirmed existed before in a different condition is not reflected upon. The whole tenor of the argument (for such it actually is) compels us to think of the resurrection as the moment at which τὸ Πνευματικόν entered. Christ appeared then and there in the form of a Πνευματικός and as such inaugurated the eschatological era. But, besides identifying the eschatological and the pneumatic, our passage is peculiar in that it most closely identifies the Spirit with Christ. Up to this point the Spirit, who works and sustains the future life was the Spirit of God. Here it begins to be, not so much the Spirit of Christ, but the Spirit which Christ became. And, being thus closely and subjectively identified with the Risen Christ, the Spirit imparts to Christ the life-giving power which is peculiarly the Spirit’s own: the Second Adam became not only Πνεῦμα but πνεῦμα ζωοποιοῦν. This is of great importance for determining the relation to eschatology of the Christ-worked life in believers.” And here is the footnote I was referring to: “The question why Paul, after having up to vs. 43 (incl.) conducted his whole argument on the basis of a comparison between the body of sin and the body of the resurrection, substitutes from vs. 44 on for the body of sin the normal body of creation is an interesting one, though very difficult to answer. The answer should not be sought in the direction of ascribing to him the view that the creation-body and the body of sin are qualitatively identical, in other words that the evil predicates of φθορά, ἀτιμία, ἀσθενεία, enumerated in vs. 42 belong to the body in virtue of creation. Paul teaches too plainly elsewhere that these things came into the world through sin. The proper solution seems to be as follows: the Apostle was intent upon showing that in the plan of God from the outset provision was made for a higher kind of body (as pertaining to a higher state of existence generally). From the abnormal body of sin no inference could be drawn as to that effect. The abnormal and the eschatological are not so logically correlated that the one can be postulated from the other. But the world of creation and the world to come are thus correlated, the one pointing forward to the other; on the principle of typology the first Adam prefigures the last Adam, the psychical body the pneumatic body (cp. Rom. 5:14). The statement of vs. 44b is not meant as an apodictic assertion, but as an argument: if there exists one kind of body, there exists the other kind also. This explains why the quotation (Gen. 2:7), which relates proximately to the psychical state only, is yet treated by Paul as proving both, and as therefore warranting the subjoined proposition: “the last Adam became a life-giving Spirit.” Both are from page 169 of the Pauline Eschatology. This is background from Vos that enables a grasp of how the personalized humanity of Jesus undergoes a radical advancement by the work of the Spirit (not excluding the agency of Jesus' own divine personhood given the unity of all the works of God ad extra yet remembering there are distinct personal acts peculiar to each person as per John 2:18). Vos' point hinges on the way that the Spirit not only equips Jesus’ person with reference to his Adamic humanity but advances Jesus' estate with reference to his Adamic humanity. That is Vos' point when it comes to the relation between the Holy Spirit and Jesus' personalized humanity.
Commenting about midway (37:56) through the episode where Camden & Lane speak of impeccability. Camden, not only did Sproul affirm peccability, but I believe Sinclair Ferguson did as well. I think that Q&A had both speaking on the subject. You are absolutely correct in that they are affirming this for the best of reasons, but are inadvertently introducing a "Nestorianism" into our Christology.
Very interesting. Would we conclude that an affirmation of the mutability of Christ's human nature (he grew in wisdom, stature, etc.) is not Nestorian because such is not a change in the Hypostatic Union (change in human nature only, not the one Person)? This is a thought experiment.
I will say that this still produces a curious metaphysical question: how does a mere human nature grow in wisdom? I would have thought that persons grow in wisdom. This cannot be true of Christ, lest we run aground of Nestorianism.
@@Eric_Lichtenberg Remember that the human nature receives its personality from the personalizing union with the divine Logos (the divine person of the Son of God). That is another key feature of the enhypostatic character of the assumed human nature.
@@vanttil101 Yes, I remember Camden and Lane talking about this now that you mention it. I assume your point is that Christ's human nature was never alone, being personalized by the Divine Logos the instant he assumed his human nature. That's a good point, but I fail to see how it solves the mystery of Christ's growth in wisdom. As I mentioned previously, I would have thought that persons grow in wisdom, meaning that the person as a whole is changed, not just his nature. I suppose since the Divine Logos is all wise, he simply brought his human nature up to speed as it were. Maybe this is just a Christological mystery that we are to accept and for which we are to worship our Lord. As Calvin said, we must make an end of speaking where Scripture makes an end of speaking.
This was a blessing guys
Thank you
So blessed by Pastor Tipton. A high view of
Scripture is essential to the depth and practice of our faith.
To quote (paraphrase) Pastor Tipton, a denial of these truths do not make them any less true….. Amen!
Roll tide! Thanks for the work you guys do.
Excellent application! Simply put, Christ's victory at this point of probation was foundational to his active obedience in our place.
Okay, final comment. Loved the episode. Thank you both for walking through these great R-H truths and opening up the beauties of Christ for us.
I can't wait for Part 2 of the course on Thomas. The first one has been a tremendous help with my reading of him.
I can't wait to get the book and catch up!! I'm enjoying Reformed Dogmatics
Concerning the claim at 54:21 that the Holy Spirit gives "new equipment" to the divine person of Jesus. How is that possible as the divine person of Jesus/Logos is coequal with the Holy Spirit and lacks nothing that the Holy Spirit has? Can a gift be given to a nature rather than to a person? Even if we assume that a nature can posses gifts rather than a person - how would the human nature need something from the Holy Spirit if it is one with the Logos? Wouldn't the Logos have already provided everything at the point of the incarnation?
The point put more precisely is that the Spirit gives gifts to the person of the incarnate Mediator with reference to the assumed humanity. The gifts are equipment to discharge the office as Mediator. Vos speaks, then, of "gifts to the human nature" of the Son as the human nature exists enhypostatically (RD 3, 56-60). The divine person simpliciter cannot undergo increase or decrease, but the divine person with reference to the enhypostatic human nature can be enriched, endowed, and equipped to discharge his duties as the Mediator.
@@vanttil101 How was there anything wanting from what the Logos gave the human nature that the Holy Spirit had to make up for?
Tell me if this sounds familiar to you at all. The humanity Jesus assumed was unfallen but not yet glorified. He assumed a natural body but was not given a spiritual body until his resurrection (I Cor.15:45). But the Spirit equipped him with all he needed to attain the spiritual body and resurrection. You can see Vos’ discussion of this especially on page 169 in the Pauline Eschatology. Feel free to follow up with any questions.
@@vanttil101 One cannot give gifts to a nature, only a person. If Jesus is a divine person how can he be wanting in anything?
When you say //the Spirit equipped him with all he needed to attain the spiritual body and resurrection// are you saying the divine person who resurrected Jesus is not Himself, but rather the Holy Spirit? How can that be the case in light of John 10:18 "No one takes it from me, but I lay it down of my own accord. I have authority to lay it down and authority to take it up again. This command I received from my Father.” and John 2:19 Jesus answered, "Destroy this temple, and in three days I will raise it up again."
Jesus says He is not merely one who was resurrected (like Lazurus) but is the very essence of resurrection itself. John 10:18 "Jesus said to her, 'I am the resurrection and the life. Whoever believes in me, though he die, yet shall he live,'"
While Acts 2:24; Galatians 1:1 say it is by the Father "...Jesus Christ and God the Father, who raised him from the dead"
(This is not a conflict if one holds Jesus was granted this privilege by the authority of the Father, with John 5:26 seemingly providing the basis for that position: "For as the Father has life in Himself, so also He has granted the Son to have life in Himself.")
@@wowaconiaHere are two quotes from Vos that I had in mind.
“Let us now briefly survey the evidence found for this representation in the Epistles. 1 Cor. 15:42-49 contrasts the two bodies that belong to the preëschatological and the eschatological states successively. The former is characterized as ψυχικόν, the latter as πνευματικόν. This adjective Pneumatikon expresses the quality of the body in the eschatological state. Every thought of immaterialness, or etherealness or absence of physical density ought to be kept carefully removed from the term. Whatever in regard to such qualifications may or may not be involved; it is certain that such traits, if existing, are not described here by the adjective in question. In order to keep far such misunderstandings the capitalizing of the word ought to be carefully guarded both in translation and otherwise: πνευματικόν almost certainly leads on the wrong track, whereas Πνευματικόν, not only sounds a note of warning, but in addition points in the right direction positively. Paul means to characterize the resurrection-state as the state in which the Pneuma rules. That it rules signifies more particularly, that it impresses upon the body its three-fold characteristic of ἀφθαρσία, δόξα and δύναμις (vss. 42, 43). Over against this stands the psychical body, which in order of time precedes the soma Pneumatikon. The former for its part is characterized by φθορά, ἀτιμία and ἀσθενεία. The passage is unique even in the long register of the high mysteries of the faith with Paul, in that it contrasts not the body affected by sin, not the body as it came to exist as a result of the entrance of evil into the world, with the future body, but the primordial body of Adam (“the First Adam”) and the body of the consummation. The proximate reference is to the contrast between the two bodies only; but in vs. 46 the representation widens out to a far more general, indeed a cosmical one. In the all-comprehensive antithesis there established by the principle: “that is not first which is τὸ Πνευματικόν, but that is first which is τὸ ψυχικόν, then that which is τὸ Πνευματικόν”, this is expressed by the contrast ἐκ γῆς and ἐξ οὐρανοῦ. When it is affirmed that the Second Man is from heaven, this has nothing to do with the original provenience of Christ from heaven; the “from heaven” does not necessarily imply a “coming from heaven,” any more than the opposite “from earth” implies a coming of Adam from the earth at the first creation. To refer “from heaven” to the coming of Christ out of the state of preëxistence at his incarnation would make Paul contradict himself, for it would reverse the order insisted upon in vs. 46; not the “Pneumatic” is first, but the “psychical.” Besides this it would make the Pneumatic the constituent principle of the human nature in Christ before the resurrection, of which there is no trace elsewhere with Paul. The phrase “from heaven” simply expresses that Christ after a supernatural fashion became the Second Man at the point marked by ἔπειτα. A “becoming” is affirmed of both Adams, the second as well as the first, for the verb ἐγένετο in vs. 45 belongs to both clauses. How far in either case the subject of which this is affirmed existed before in a different condition is not reflected upon. The whole tenor of the argument (for such it actually is) compels us to think of the resurrection as the moment at which τὸ Πνευματικόν entered. Christ appeared then and there in the form of a Πνευματικός and as such inaugurated the eschatological era. But, besides identifying the eschatological and the pneumatic, our passage is peculiar in that it most closely identifies the Spirit with Christ. Up to this point the Spirit, who works and sustains the future life was the Spirit of God. Here it begins to be, not so much the Spirit of Christ, but the Spirit which Christ became. And, being thus closely and subjectively identified with the Risen Christ, the Spirit imparts to Christ the life-giving power which is peculiarly the Spirit’s own: the Second Adam became not only Πνεῦμα but πνεῦμα ζωοποιοῦν. This is of great importance for determining the relation to eschatology of the Christ-worked life in believers.”
And here is the footnote I was referring to: “The question why Paul, after having up to vs. 43 (incl.) conducted his whole argument on the basis of a comparison between the body of sin and the body of the resurrection, substitutes from vs. 44 on for the body of sin the normal body of creation is an interesting one, though very difficult to answer. The answer should not be sought in the direction of ascribing to him the view that the creation-body and the body of sin are qualitatively identical, in other words that the evil predicates of φθορά, ἀτιμία, ἀσθενεία, enumerated in vs. 42 belong to the body in virtue of creation. Paul teaches too plainly elsewhere that these things came into the world through sin. The proper solution seems to be as follows: the Apostle was intent upon showing that in the plan of God from the outset provision was made for a higher kind of body (as pertaining to a higher state of existence generally). From the abnormal body of sin no inference could be drawn as to that effect. The abnormal and the eschatological are not so logically correlated that the one can be postulated from the other. But the world of creation and the world to come are thus correlated, the one pointing forward to the other; on the principle of typology the first Adam prefigures the last Adam, the psychical body the pneumatic body (cp. Rom. 5:14). The statement of vs. 44b is not meant as an apodictic assertion, but as an argument: if there exists one kind of body, there exists the other kind also. This explains why the quotation (Gen. 2:7), which relates proximately to the psychical state only, is yet treated by Paul as proving both, and as therefore warranting the subjoined proposition: “the last Adam became a life-giving Spirit.”
Both are from page 169 of the Pauline Eschatology.
This is background from Vos that enables a grasp of how the personalized humanity of Jesus undergoes a radical advancement by the work of the Spirit (not excluding the agency of Jesus' own divine personhood given the unity of all the works of God ad extra yet remembering there are distinct personal acts peculiar to each person as per John 2:18). Vos' point hinges on the way that the Spirit not only equips Jesus’ person with reference to his Adamic humanity but advances Jesus' estate with reference to his Adamic humanity. That is Vos' point when it comes to the relation between the Holy Spirit and Jesus' personalized humanity.
Commenting about midway (37:56) through the episode where Camden & Lane speak of impeccability. Camden, not only did Sproul affirm peccability, but I believe Sinclair Ferguson did as well. I think that Q&A had both speaking on the subject. You are absolutely correct in that they are affirming this for the best of reasons, but are inadvertently introducing a "Nestorianism" into our Christology.
Very interesting. Would we conclude that an affirmation of the mutability of Christ's human nature (he grew in wisdom, stature, etc.) is not Nestorian because such is not a change in the Hypostatic Union (change in human nature only, not the one Person)?
This is a thought experiment.
Nvm, I continued listening and they answered my question.
I will say that this still produces a curious metaphysical question: how does a mere human nature grow in wisdom? I would have thought that persons grow in wisdom. This cannot be true of Christ, lest we run aground of Nestorianism.
@@Eric_Lichtenberg Remember that the human nature receives its personality from the personalizing union with the divine Logos (the divine person of the Son of God). That is another key feature of the enhypostatic character of the assumed human nature.
@@vanttil101 Yes, I remember Camden and Lane talking about this now that you mention it. I assume your point is that Christ's human nature was never alone, being personalized by the Divine Logos the instant he assumed his human nature. That's a good point, but I fail to see how it solves the mystery of Christ's growth in wisdom. As I mentioned previously, I would have thought that persons grow in wisdom, meaning that the person as a whole is changed, not just his nature. I suppose since the Divine Logos is all wise, he simply brought his human nature up to speed as it were. Maybe this is just a Christological mystery that we are to accept and for which we are to worship our Lord. As Calvin said, we must make an end of speaking where Scripture makes an end of speaking.