The Highway Forums General Discussion Theology Discussion Forum Nicene Creed and Eternal Generation

I wanted to follow up on my comments in church last Sunday regarding the Lord’s assumption of a human nature. After reading part of Owen’s essay on the Lord’s priesthood, I could see that I did not teach what Owen was teaching and thereby assumed that I had taught error, as I mentioned. However, I have read a lot more from him this week, and now understand what he taught. And, I believe that he was wrong. By that, I mean, that he took all of the verses relating to the Lord’s taking of humanity, and applied them to eternal generation. For instance, in Hebrews 1:2, where Scripture says “Hath in these last days spoken unto us by His Son, whom He hath appointed heir of all things, by whom also He made the worlds,” Owen says that refers to the eternally generated Second Person of the Godhead, not the God Man Jesus Christ. In that essay, Owen took a multitude of verses that apply to the glory of the Lord Jesus and taught that they applied only to the Second Person, apart from His Humanity. I cannot accept the teaching that the Second and Third Persons of the Godhead were created. As God said, “I change not,” I do not believe He changed from being One Person to Three Persons. I believe that Scripture is clear that God is perpetually Triune. He did not become Triune.

So, after reading his essay and understanding his teaching, he caused me to understand that what I taught in Sunday School was mostly correct. Verses like Col. 1:15-16 and Hebrews 1:2 must refer to one of two things, either eternal generation or Christ’s assumption of humanity. And, if Christ was not eternally generated, then according to those verses, His assumption of His Human Nature occurred before the foundation of the world. There are a multitude of verses that teach this. But, I just picked these two out of the list of verses that Owen used.

My error was in teaching that the Lord was Head over the human race at the point of creation. That definitely is wrong. If He had been head over humanity, then all humanity would have been saved because He died for all of His people. Owen made me realize this error.

Concerning the timing of the Lord’s assumption of a Human Nature, I am still seeking guidance. But, it seems clear that He did so before the foundation of the world, according to Col. 1:15-16 (by Him all things were created.) Also, the eternal covenant demands His presence as God Man (Gal. 3:20). He had to have already been Human in order to stand as Mediator between the Father and His people in the eternal covenant with the Father.

The major point that I am unclear on is His relationship to those who are lost. My thinking, though it is currently unclear, is that God the Father was the Father of Adam. The Lord Jesus is Head and Father over the “new man” (Eph. 2:15). Therefore, the Lord Jesus adopted into His family those who were previously of the Father’s family, but had fallen into condemnation. It seems that the fulness of the adoption happened immediately after the fall, though the adoption was foreordained before the foundation of the world. His assumption of humanity had to have happened prior to the incarnation. Otherwise, Old Testament saints were adopted into a family with no Head and no Life. The body that the elect are made members of is Christ’s, and Christ is the source of life for each member (John 1:4). Therefore, Christ must have been the Head of the new creation prior to the salvation of the first person, Eve.

I would appreciate your comments and critique of those thoughts. I would like to get this straight in my head, to insure that I teach correctly going forward. It is unlikely to come up in a text in the near future. But, I would really like to get my theology right on the Glory of Christ.