Let's go ahead and work through this study this evening. In this study, we come to the important subject of the virgin birth and therefore the incarnation or what you could literally call the enfleshment of Jesus Christ. Thomas Aquinas begins his comments on this line of the Creed saying, it is necessary for a Christian not only to believe in the Son of God as shown in the preceding, but also one must believe in his incarnation. And with this statement, we get the hint that there are some who should not be considered Christians who do not believe in the incarnation of the Son of God. Indeed, this is one of the most hotly contested sections of the creed, because in it we confess the virgin birth of Christ. And this is hard for people to understand and hard for people to accept because, to put it mildly, virgin births are not very common. And so this is a difficult phrase for people to understand and frankly for believers to view as credible. The church has always confessed the virgin birth of Christ and look a little bit at why this evening this phrase concerning his being conceived by the power of the Holy Spirit and born of the Virgin Mary like the previous one. In other words, the first phrase, I believe in Jesus Christ is only begotten son, our Lord. This phrase is also connected to the first section concerning God, the father, creator of heaven and earth. And so, there's a tie there. And in actuality, if you confess that first phrase of the creed, if you believe that God is the creator of heaven and earth, then you should have no problem, at least philosophically, with the virgin birth. In other words, if you believe in special creation, ex nihilo, you should have no problem believing in a virgin conception of the son of God as he became incarnate. In other words, if you believe that there is a God who by the very word of his power is able to speak the heavens and the earth into existence then a virgin birth should not be too hard to believe. I think this is this gets back to Luther's comment concerning creation and he said I think I think the doctrine of creation is harder to believe in the doctrine of the incarnation because not there's no parallel to it at all. And so there really shouldn't be if you if you if you sincerely and and truthfully can confess that first line of the Apostles Creed. I believe in God the Father Almighty creator of heaven and earth. And this this this line should not be a problem because your God should be powerful enough to do this and able to do this. As the saying goes, all roads lead to Rome. And in Christian theology, we can say that all errors can be traced back to a mistaken view of the person and work of Christ. And therefore, the very nature of Christ has been a subject of controversy throughout the history of the church. And just it's been a great providential happening that in our in our second hour. Uh, we're, we're kind of tracking right here with this, this issue. And this morning, Andy was going through really this, this very issue, um, how the church wrestled with what the scriptures say about the nature of Jesus Christ. And ultimately coming out affirming simply the, the, the truth that's revealed in scripture, even though it's very difficult to grasp that intellectually and hold that together. And that is that Jesus is fully human and fully divine, that there is a single person. He's not two people, but in one person, there are these two natures that are not mixed or diminished or convoluted in any way. And this is a very difficult doctrine to understand to some degree. And yet it's it's similar to the Trinity. We believe it on the basis of this is how God has revealed himself to us. And that's the ultimate basis upon which we believe this doctrine. But this is this has been a huge struggle or was particularly a huge struggle in the early church. How do we understand Jesus. What is his his nature. And that that that belies a position right there or his nature's. Is he a single person? Does he just seem to be a man? Is he sort of a superman? All these kinds of questions were debated and discussed within the early church's history. Before we get into some of these controversies, though, I want us to make sure we understand this point, and that is that the Bible always associates the birth and incarnation of the Son of God with salvation. What I mean by this is that it's not a subject for speculation, but the Bible presents Jesus as necessary in his being who he is is necessary for salvation. That's the key. I think even as even as we state, and I think Chalcedon is just that perfect or the best statement we'll ever get, probably concerning the person in the nature of Christ. But this still remains a mystery to us. It's still very difficult. But the nature of Jesus Christ, his person, is not up for speculation. We need to recognize that the components with which the church has articulated the person of Christ come down to an issue of the necessity for salvation. That's the main emphasis on Christology. In Christian theology, it is not speculation. It's not what is sometimes pejoratively referred to as a question like how many angels can dance on the head of a needle or the head of a pen. Which, by the way, was a very important theological debate in church history. And it dealt with do spirits have spatiality? Do spirits take up space? And it was articulated in this idea of how many angels can dance on the head of a pin. If a spirit has no physical being, then innumerable angels could dance on the head of a pin. They don't take up space. That was what that whole thing was about. But that's often sort of understood as a speculative debate. Issues of Christology are really issues of salvation. That's where the rub is. I want to just review a few passages of scripture there's there's tons more we can look at. But I've quoted here a few passages from the New Testament that that more or less highlight this this issue that this is not a subject for speculation but a necessity for our salvation for unto you is born this day in the city of David a savior. That's the key that. Unto you is born this day in the city of David, a savior who is Christ the Lord. Galatians 4, 4 through 5, when the fullness of time had come, God sent forth his son, born of a woman, born under the law to redeem those who were under the law so that we might receive adoption as sons. Philippians 2, 5 through 8, have this mind among yourselves which is yours in Christ Jesus who though he was in the form of God did not count equality with God a thing to be grasped but made himself nothing taking the form of a servant being born in the likeness of men and being found in human form. He humbled himself becoming obedient to the point of death even death on a cross. In other words the aim of the incarnation was Salvation. Consequently, when Christ came into the world, this is Hebrews 10 5. He said sacrifices and offerings you have not desired, but a body you have prepared for me. Why? Because he was coming to redeem his people. Romans 517, if because of one man's trespass, death reigned through that one man, much more will those who receive the abundance of grace and the free gift of righteousness reign in life through the one man, Jesus Christ. Hebrews 415, we do not have a high priest who is unable to sympathize with our weaknesses, but one who in every respect has been tempted as we are. Yet without. And so over and over again you see the Bible ties the question of who Jesus is and to the question of or the subject of his birth and his incarnation. It's always tied to salvation. It's not fodder for speculation it's it's ultimately the ground of our salvation him. Thomas Aquinas deals with the errors surrounding the person that should be of Christ in a very helpful and succinct fashion in his commentary on the Creed. In his comments, he notes how the Nicene Creed added specific words to the Apostles' Creed to reject various Christological errors. And so, following his general outline, we're going to briefly consider many of these errors that have arisen over the years. As we go through these, I felt Andy's pain this morning. These are. This is not the easiest subject to think through. But the thing I want to focus on and I want us to see emphasizes we go through this list of heretics and errors is one of the things I'm just amazed with this is just how simple but yet profoundly Aquinas answers each of these errors straight from the word of God. He just he just knocks him out of the park with a very basic quote from Scripture and says that can't be true because the word says here. And it's just it's a wonderful demonstration. Again I think Aquinas following say are very very similar to the way Christ rebuffed the temptations of the devil. With the Word of God here, Aquinas picks up his master's example and just simply knocks these out of the park. And so, you'll hear though in here what the basic error is and why it can't be true. So, what the basic Christological error is and then why it can't be the case that that is who Jesus is or that's what his person and natures are about. Origin. said that Christ was born to save even demons. So, his incarnation was not merely to save mankind, but to save the demonic realm as well. And here Aquinas just simply says that this is opposed to sacred scripture. For Matthew says in verse 41 of chapter 25, depart from me, you wicked ones, into eternal fire, which has been prepared for the devil and his angels. That's a great response to Origen's idea that Jesus will ultimately save all of the demons. There's a place that was prepared for them for punishment not salvation. Photinus said that Christ was indeed born of the Virgin but he added that he was merely a man. Nonetheless by living well and doing the will of God he merited to become a son of God just as other holy men. But this position, Aquinas says, is opposed to the authority of the Lord in John 638, where Jesus says, I came down from heaven, not that I might do my will, but the will of him who sent me. And this is Aquinas's reasoning. It is a fact that he would not have come down from heaven unless he would have been there. It's very simple. This is what I just have been so impressed reading Aquinas's commentary, just here's this guy who's seriously one of the greatest Christian theologians ever. And yet his ability to make the profound is very simple and just to talk in plain language comes through. So it's a fact that he would not have come down from heaven unless he would have been there. If he was merely a man he would not have been in heaven. So if he came down from heaven then he's more than merely a man. So this this guy's position can't be true. And so, the Nicene Council added, along with this phrase on Christ, he came down from heaven. They added that specifically to answer this heretic, Photinus. Manichaeus said that although the Son of God always was, and that he came down from heaven, so you see he's not committing the error of Photinus, and so he says he He is the son of God. He always was. He came down from heaven. Nevertheless, he did not have real flesh, but only apparent flesh. So this is the guy who's saying he's not a real man. He's really God, but he's not really man. Again, Aquinas, but this is false, for it is unseemly for the teacher of truth to have any falsity. Therefore, he had real flesh just as he appeared to have. Thus, Jesus said to his disciples in Luke 2439 touch and see for a spirit does not have flesh and bones. As you see, I have. Thus, the Nicene Council added these words and was in flesh. In other words, is his point is, is that if Jesus only appeared to have flesh, then there would be some kind of duplicity or some kind of deception there in his very appearance. He's appearing to be a man when he's really not one. So how is this one who says, I am the way, the truth and the life. How do we reconcile that to him in a sense, faking everyone out and only appearing to have flesh? Beyond that, how do you get past Jesus telling his disciples, Look, touch me. I'm a man. I have flesh and blood. I'm not merely a spirit. And so this is how Aquinas would would answer Manichaeus from whom the Ebionite heresy comes said Christ was born of Mary. Ebion was a Jew by the way very very much rooted entirely in the Old Testament said Christ was born of Mary but by male seed from the intercourse of a man. But this is false because the angel said in Matthew 120. for what is born in her is by the Holy Spirit. Again, I just just a very simple answer from the Word of God. That can't be because the angel said this. The Scripture says that it is by the Holy Spirit, not by a man. I mean, again, maybe we maybe we would like or were expecting more highfalutin argumentation, but I There is a profundity to what Aquinas is doing here. He is just dismissing, again, on the basis of what God has said in his word. Valentinus confessed that Christ was conceived by the Holy Spirit. Nonetheless, he maintained that the Spirit transported a heavenly body and placed it in the Virgin Mary, and that became the body of Christ. So the body didn't come from Mary. It was he he brought this heavenly body and play in put it within Mary but the divinity was I'm sorry. That's it. That's it is said that the body of Christ passed through her as if she was a conduit. But this is in error Aquinas goes on to say for the angel said from you will be born the Holy One and in Galatians four for God sent his own son, born of a woman. It's not just a heavenly body. It was it was from her. The body came from Mary. Arius and Apollinarius, they both said that although Christ is the word of God and born of the Virgin Mary, nonetheless, he did not have a human soul, but the divinity was there in place of the soul. But this is opposed to scripture because Jesus said my soul is troubled. John twelve twenty seven and Matthew twenty six thirty eight. My soul is sad even to death. So again here just dismissing it on the basis of the word of God. Nestorius from the Nestorians or the head of the Nestorian movement said that the son of God was joined to the human through indwelling alone. But this is wrong, because then he would not be a human being, but simply in a human being. In other words, somehow this body in housed divinity, but that really wasn't part of him. He just kind of dwelled in this body, but it really wasn't part of him. And again, the difference is that this would this would then not make him or make him not a human being. But simply in a human being. And yet, Jesus. That he Christ is human is evident when we read in Philippians 2 7 made in the likeness of humankind or in John 8 40. Why do you seek to kill me? A human being, literally a man who spoke the truth to you. Jesus' own words and claim of his humanity. So those are and there are there are a few more we could go through as Andy knows from his study there's just numerous Christological heresies all dealing with different ways of viewing the person of Christ. But again the the Orthodox position simply echoing what we have in Scripture is that Jesus Christ is the same in substance with the father he has two distinct natures, a human and a divine nature, and yet he is one person. And there is this union that does not confuse those two, but they will never be separated ever again. It's one of the great mysteries of the Christian faith. This point right here in the middle on the back page here. As can be seen, what is at stake in each of these heresies is the truthfulness and trustworthiness of the word of God. And that is very significant when we think of the virgin birth and incarnation of Christ. And I want you to think of the parallel that we have with Christ and with the word of God. Jesus is the word of God in flesh. We can call it incarnate. And the Bible is the Word of God in print. Just as God used sinful men to write his Word, but guaranteed the holiness of his Word through the attendance of the Holy Spirit, so too with using a sinful woman to incarnate his Word, but guaranteed the holiness of his Word through the attendance of the Holy Spirit. There's a great parallel between the person of Christ and the Word of God. very, very much a parallel between them. In fact, this attendance of the Holy Spirit is brought out very clearly in Luke chapter one verse thirty five and the angel answered her. The Holy Spirit will come upon you and the power of the Most High will overshadow you. Therefore, and that's because the Holy Spirit will come upon you. Therefore, the child to be born will be called holy, the son of God. Why will he be called holy? Because the Holy Spirit is attending the conception and birth of this child. This is why we sometimes when we talk about the Holy Spirit, it's it's it's terrible grammar. It's not even a real word, but it's it's sometimes better for us to think of it as an action. He is the holy in spirit. He's the one who makes holy. That's that's why it's primarily his work to transform us and to sanctify us and to make us into the image of Christ. That's the Holy Spirit's work. He's holying us. He's sanctifying us. He's making us holy. And this is his this is his domain. Whatever he touches, he makes holy. And so his his attendance of the The inscription of the Word of God guaranteed that the Word of God is perfect and infallible and inerrant. It's the Holy Bible. This is why when we discuss questions like the doctrine of inerrancy, we start with the doctrine of inspiration. That's where it begins. If this is the inspired Word of God, then it is inerrant. If Jesus was conceived by the Holy Spirit in the womb of the Virgin Mary, then he is holy. He is without sin. You can't have the Holy Spirit involved and not get that product. That's the issue going on there. Thus, the virgin birth is essential to the sinlessness of Jesus. which also brings up the importance of bypassing a man in the process of his birth. So Westminster Confession says concerning the propagation of the sin nature, our first parents send they being the root of all mankind. The guilt of this sin was imputed to all their posterity, descending from them by ordinary generation. Thus, Jesus not having Adam as his father, did not inherit a sinful nature and is therefore able to save us not having to make atonement for his own sins. Again, this is brought out not just in these passages here, but pretty extensively in the book of Hebrews. Therefore, he had to be made like his brothers in every respect so that he might become a merciful and faithful high priest in the service of God to make propitiation for the sins of the people for, because he himself has suffered when tempted, he's able to help those who are being tempted and then skipping on to chapter four verse fifteen. For we do not have a high priest who is unable to sympathize with our weaknesses, but one who, in every respect, has been tempted as we are yet without sin. So this The virgin birth of Christ, as it relates to his incarnation, a major issue with the virgin birth is the guaranteeing of the sinlessness of Jesus so that we can be saved. That's the issue. Thus, when we confess, and I want to go back to what we understand the word, I believe to be, When we say, I believe, we're not checking off a theological litmus test and saying, I believe these facts. We are saying that, but we're saying much more. We're saying, I rely upon, I am, I've got my life laid out upon the fact of the virgin birth. I'm trusting my soul to a salvation that involved in that included the virgin birth of Jesus Christ. I mean, so I'm not. I don't just believe some historic fact. I'm relying upon this virgin born savior because only a virgin born savior, one who was without sin could save that. That's what the church is confessing. When we confess the virgin birth of Christ and the apostles creed, the virgin birth also speaks of the grace of God. This is something that God did entirely by his sovereign power. He initiated it and accomplished it. Mary was an amazing and willing vessel as her confession. You know, we have the account of her response to God coming to her. I mean, can you imagine this being? I mean, just imagine being this young woman and You know, there hasn't been prophecy in Israel in 400 years. Nobody's going around. There's no charismatic movement. You know, people aren't hearing from the Lord. It's just not normal. And then all of a sudden, an angel appears to her and tells her, you're going to give birth to the Son of God. And Mary's natural response is, you know, How in the world can this be? How can I give birth? I'm not even married. And the angel says it's going to happen because the Holy Spirit is going to come upon you. He's going to to create within you this one who will be this holy, the son of God. And Mary's response is, behold, I am the servant of the Lord. Let it be to me according to your word. That's just an amazing response from a young woman at that time. I mean, she knows, or maybe she didn't at this moment, realize the stigma that would go along with that. A pregnant, unmarried woman in this society. This was heavy stuff. And so, I say thus, she is worthy of the name the Blessed Virgin Mary. For she bore the son of God and indeed echoing the spirit inspired utterance of Elizabeth who said blessed are you among women and blessed is the fruit of your womb. Along with that and echoing that Mary herself prophesied as we read in Luke one forty six to forty eight and Mary said my soul magnifies the Lord and my spirit rejoices in God my savior for he looked on the humblest state of his servant. For behold, from now on, all generations will call me blessed. It is not unbiblical to understand Mary as the blessed Virgin Mary. It is unbiblical to worship her. It is unbiblical to think that she was without sin. It is unbiblical to think that she was born by an immaculate conception herself. All of those are wrong, but we can't fling the other way and not follow scripture and recognize this is a blessed woman. This was an amazing woman. And here we are when we confess together in the Apostles Creed in reality, we're fulfilling this prophecy she pronounced years ago that all generations are going to call me blessed. It's true. We do. This is an amazing young woman and God did an amazing thing through her. In fact, our salvation came through her. The Son of God became man by way of his spirit wrought conception within and birth to the Virgin Mary to be our mediator and to bear the wrath of God against sin in our place. That's why we confess in the Apostles Creed together. I believe in Jesus Christ has only begotten son, our Lord, who was conceived by the power of the Holy Spirit. and born of the Virgin Mary. Any questions before we take our break or comments that you might have concerning the virgin birth, which again is simply the portal through we begin to talk about as we have tonight, the incarnation of Jesus Christ, the God man, as difficult as that is to to comprehend and even articulate sometimes, this is the Savior that's presented to us in Scripture by which we must be saved. Any thoughts or comments as we're coming to the end of our study tonight? Jerry? I thought it was an interesting and helpful point that Angus made this morning, when the term Mother of God first being used, it wasn't about Mary. Jesus it was about Jesus. Yes we and you made the comment for those of you who weren't in the class that when we hear Mary in our conduct context today can pray to and art and the name articulated Mary mother of God. We we have a bit of a revolt on that but that was the orthodox position against Christo Tokos. Theotokos was the was the term that the Orthodox use. And as Jerry just mentioned, and that's such a good point. At that time, Mother of God had nothing to do with Mary. It had everything to do with Christ. Was he merely a man or was he really God? Did she give birth to the Son of God or did she give birth to merely a man? That was the issue. That's why she's been called Mother of God. That's the origin of the term and the right way of understanding that, not the way it's been perverted from that point. So, yeah, it's a good point. I saw someone else. Sandra. I don't know Aquinas' entire position on Mary. It doesn't come out in his commentary on the Creed at all. He doesn't make one mention of that. He does make mention of Mother of God, Theotokos, but he does it in the proper sense. He goes back to the original debate and articulates it that way. I've been really impressed with his commentary, just how accessible it is and how biblical he is. The guy knows the word and just quotes it. like a virtuoso concerning the subjects he's dealing with. You going to follow up? Well, they claim him just like they do Augustine. I mean, like anybody, he's going to be a mixed bag to some degree, but he was one of the great Christian theologians. I mean, he was an amazing, amazing theologian. I think we've neglected him to our shame. He was long before the Reformation. Not just his teachings. Many, even in the Reformation tradition, acknowledged Aquinas' good work when it was good. I also have his commentary on Colossians, which is an interesting read as well, and Again, what I would have expected from Aquinas, you know, some of the things that you're saying that would have come out in his in his biblical exegesis, it doesn't come out. I mean, areas where you would think he would go, he would go Catholic. There's not a mention. It's just pretty straightforward, grammatical, historical exegesis. It's pretty, pretty amazing. I'm not saying let's go follow Aquinas or something like that. I'm saying that he's a He's worthy of a read. Was there another hand going up? I thought, Bob. I often wonder why it is that this doesn't come up more in the editorial we have and the public's objections to Christianity. It's as if they bypass the Virgin Birth and try to cut away at other things. I guess I would say it depends on who you read. I've heard I've heard this included in a litany against the mythological nature of Christianity. I mean who can believe this. They believe that virgins have babies and all you know that it's added in that way. I did read Cranfield C.E.B. Cranfield's commentary on on the creed and he's a British New Testament scholar who's dealt with all the the liberal scholarship out there and he went through and he showed that most of the objection or not most of them all of the objections to the virgin birth are very unimpressive. And that's why some some of some of the better and maybe more intellectually honest antagonists against Christianity don't go there because they really don't have a good case against it. They just, the objections simply don't hold up. The objections boil down to a philosophical predisposition. We don't believe in miracles, so it couldn't have happened. But no dealing with the historical record that it did happen. And so they know that it's basically when they say, we don't believe in it, or they mock it, all they're simply doing is stating their position. which that's what their position was going to be. They didn't prove their position. And Cranfield does a good job of working through some of those objections. I tried to keep it to one page or a page and a half back, so I ran out of space and cut all that out. Yeah, Will. The terminology, it's what's called an antinomy, and that is that there are two truths that we can't seem to figure out how they fit together, but they're both true. And they still baffle us to this day. Light is one of those. It is both wave and particle, and we're not sure why and how that all works out. But we know that it's true. To deny either side would be against what we know scientifically. And so, yeah, those antinomies are helpful at times to recognize that the world does deal with those in other fields. It's not merely the Christian faith that presents matters that have an antinomy or an antinomous nature to them, if that's a proper way to say that.