The Narrow Path Ministries

Quest. 22. How did Christ, being the Son of God, become man?
Ans. 22. Christ, the Son of God, became man, by taking to himself a true body,(1) and a reasonable soul,(2) being conceived by the power of the Holy Ghost, in the womb of the Virgin Mary, and born of her,(3) yet without sin.(4)

Man, they go to extremes to find something to disagree on, and yet word them in a way as to raise even more objections. I just don't see why it's that important, but ok. Here is how I might reword it.

Quest. 22. How is it that God became man?

Ans. 22. God manifested himself as man and became the Christ by His Spirit taking the form of a true body as the Son of God and imbuing that body with His Spirit, the body being conceived by the power of His own Spirit, in the womb of the Virgin Mary, and being born of her, yet being born without any taint of sin and living a life completely without sin.


Sent from my iPad using Tapatalk

Darin, you asked Ques. 22 differently from the way you quoted it. You asked, "How is it that God became man?" which is tantamount to asking, "Why did God become man?"
Also, why did you change "Christ, being the son of God" to "God". Does "God" have the same meaning as "the son of God"?

By the way, today at a Christian man's breakfast, a local pastor had been invited to speak. In his message, he said, "The son of God became man for one reason—to die on the cross." I wondered what you all think about that statement. If Christ came only for that reason, then why did He give all those instructions on living and how to become a disciple in Matt. 5, 6, and 7? Why did He provide all those parables of the Kingdom? If He came only for that reason, He might as well have been slain by Herod along with all those other Hebrew children.

So I ask you all, how do you see it? Why did the son of God become human—totally human (He divested himself of all His divine attributes (Phil 2:7), retaining only His identity as the Son of God.)

Paidion wrote:Darin, you asked Ques. 22 differently from the way you quoted it. You asked, "How is it that God became man?" which is tantamount to asking, "Why did God become man?"
Also, why did you change "Christ, being the son of God" to "God". Does "God" have the same meaning as "the son of God"?

By the way, today at a Christian man's breakfast, a local pastor had been invited to speak. In his message, he said, "The son of God became man for one reason—to die on the cross." I wondered what you all think about that statement. If Christ came only for that reason, then why did He give all those instructions on living and how to become a disciple in Matt. 5, 6, and 7? Why did He provide all those parables of the Kingdom? If He came only for that reason, He might as well have been slain by Herod along with all those other Hebrew children.

So I ask you all, how do you see it? Why did the son of God become human—totally human (He divested himself of all His divine attributes (Phil 2:7), retaining only His identity as the Son of God.)

I meant it in the sense the original question intended it - how did it come about, not why. I think I would agree with where you are going as to why and don't at all think it was just to die.


I don't necessarily believe the Son of God became man. It seems natural to me to understand that when the Word was manifest in a man, that's when there was first a Son of God. That's the point. I don't see any reason to require believing there was a Son of God before Jesus was born. There was "the Word" before Jesus was born. But the extent to which the pre-incarnate existence of the Christ is to be equated with the Word is not very clear. Certainly not clear enough to establish a Catechism or credal level of dogma.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

darinhouston wrote:

Quest. 22. How did Christ, being the Son of God, become man?
Ans. 22. Christ, the Son of God, became man, by taking to himself a true body,(1) and a reasonable soul,(2) being conceived by the power of the Holy Ghost, in the womb of the Virgin Mary, and born of her,(3) yet without sin.(4)

Man, they go to extremes to find something to disagree on, and yet word them in a way as to raise even more objections. I just don't see why it's that important, but ok. Here is how I might reword it.

Quest. 22. How is it that God became man?

Ans. 22. God manifested himself as man and became the Christ by His Spirit taking the form of a true body as the Son of God and imbuing that body with His Spirit, the body being conceived by the power of His own Spirit, in the womb of the Virgin Mary, and being born of her, yet being born without any taint of sin and living a life completely without sin.


Sent from my iPad using Tapatalk

The term Christ (Greek) or Messiah (Hebraic) both mean the same thing!

G5547

Χριστός
Christós; fem. christḗ, neut. christón, adj. from chríō (G5548), to anoint. Anointed, a term used in the OT applied to everyone anointed with the holy oil, primarily to the high priesthood (Lev_4:5, Lev_4:16). Also a name applied to others acting as redeemers.

Your totally missing the point! NO one choses to becomes the Christ/Messiah AS they are anointed... as in being the chosen one

NASB Luk 9:35 Then a voice came out of the cloud, saying, "This is My Son, My Chosen One; listen to Him!"

You fail to understand the term Christ/Messiah!

King David was the Christ too... that is what makes him so important in Jesus' linage!

Paul

I think that's splitting hairs -- don't you "become the Christ" when you are anointed? Put in other words -- don't you "become anointed" when you're anointed?

darinhouston wrote:I think that's splitting hairs -- don't you "become the Christ" when you are anointed? Put in other words -- don't you "become anointed" when you're anointed?

Exactly what I'm saying... Why do you think Jesus never preformed a miracle until he was anointed??? Because he could not!!! Jesus needed God to preform them through him!!! Just read Acts 2:22

NASB Act 2:22 "Men of Israel, listen to these words: Jesus the Nazarene, a man attested to you by God with miracles and wonders and signs which God performed through Him in your midst, just as you yourselves know--

Do I really need to show you more?
Paul

Darin said:

Man, they go to extremes to find something to disagree on, and yet word them in a way as to raise even more objections. I just don't see why it's that important, but ok.

This brought up a curiosity as to the historical background of the catechism. The question in my mind is, "Why *did* they go to such extremes to disagree about this. Especially since from our vantage point, it's not that important.

I don't presume anyone's ignorance other than my own in quoting some wikipedia stuff.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Westminst ... n_of_Faith says

The purpose of the Westminster Assembly, in which 121 Puritan clergymen participated, was to provide official documents for the reformation of the Church of England. The Church of Scotland had recently overthrown its bishops and adopted presbyterianism (see Bishops' Wars). For this reason, as a condition for entering into the alliance with the English Parliament, the Scottish Parliament formed the Solemn League and Covenant with the English Parliament, which meant that the Church of England would abandon episcopalianism and consistently adhere to Calvinistic standards of doctrine and worship. The Confession and Catechisms were produced in order to secure the help of the Scots against the king.

Which means that there was not a little politics involved.

I'm reminded of the Council of Nicea which was not simply a theological situation. It was necessitated by divisions in Constantine's Rome. It represented a shift to philosophy and away from scripture. It defined faith more by doctrine than by imitation of Jesus. And it increased the power of bishops over the church.