Received in the post mail invitation to service from Garden State Baptist Church. Emphasis on "multi-ethnic". Curious. Sundays 10:45AM & 5PM. 17 mins South of us. I'll just mark it on the map. I do wonder, if this is the best way American Christians do evangelism these days. Kind of sad. But it's better than not doing anything.
On Christ being of Mary's substance: This site lists a few good quotes from great men (See comments for copy).
Came across a section of Louis Berkhof's Systematic Theology, and I was reminded of a debate I had on FB a week ago, with Mike Hollomon, touching on the subject of female pastor, who claimed to be a Baptist (fundamentalist) preacher of 48+ years and appeared to love Berkhof's. Yet everything he said opposes this part of Berkhof, be it intentional or not:
Berkhof's Systematic Theology: The States of Christ - The State of Humiliation:
d. The incarnation constituted Christ one of the human race.
In opposition to the teachings of the Anabaptists, our Confession affirms that Christ assumed His human nature from the substance of His mother. The prevailing opinion among the Anabaptists was that the Lord brought His human nature from heaven, and that Mary was merely the conduit or channel through which it passed. On this view His human nature was really a new creation, similar to ours, but not organically connected with it. The importance of opposing this view will be readily seen. If the human nature of Christ was not derived from the same stock as ours but merely resembled it, there exists no such relation between us and Him as is necessary to render His mediation available for our good.
So it seems that this is a thing with Anabaptists, that Jesus' human nature is not organically linked with ours, though they may not view His human nature as non-created, at least not according to Berkhof, but the actual fact I am not sure. Although, it is not surprising that the Anabaptist influence today has resulted in a uncreated/uncreaturely human nature of Jesus view. Not just among Chinese Christians as Alex once proposed.
And Bavinck's take on this is just gold:
Herman Bavinck (1854-1921) explains the motivation of these Anabaptists: “That [Christ’s] human nature did not exist beforehand. It was not brought down with Christ from heaven and borne into Mary from the outside and, so to speak, conducted through her body. The Anabaptists teach this in order to hold to the sinlessness of the human nature in Christ. But in taking this stand, they are following in the example of the ancient gnosticism, and proceed from the idea that flesh and matter are in themselves sinful. But in the incarnation, also, Scripture holds to the goodness of creation and to the Divine origin of matter. Christ took His human nature from Mary (Mt 1.20, Lu 2.7, Gal 4.4). So far as the flesh is concerned, He is from David and the fathers (Acts 2.30, Rom 1.3, 9.5). Therefore this nature in Him is a true and perfect human nature, like ours in all things, sin excepted (Heb 2.14, 17, 4:15). Nothing human was strange to Christ. The denial of the coming of Christ in the flesh is the beginning of the antichrist (1 John 2:22).” The Divine and Human Nature of Christ by Herman Bavinck
The FB Debate pasted below in comment.
This contrast can also be seen in the Baptist's ("reformed" or not) 1689 London Confession Chapter 8.2 versus the WCF 8.2, where in of Christ the Mediator, the Baptists struck down the phrase "of her substance" after ...being conceived by the Holy Spirit in the womb of the Virgin Mary, of her substance. Thus, it is no surprise any "reformed" Baptist would hold to a Christ's human nature in error the way the Anabaptists do.