« Prev MICRON'S CONFESSION, IN HIS NARRATIVE, THAT… Next »

MICRON'S CONFESSION, IN HIS NARRATIVE, THAT CHRIST IS THE SON OF

GOD, AND OF MAN.

Micron writes: Jesus Christ is called the son of God on account of his eternal and ineffable generation of God the Father, according to his divine form. Thus he is also called the son of man on account of his being born in the fullness of time, of a human being, of Mary, according to the flesh or human nature, Matt. 1. HACILLE.

Answer. I would here faithfully admon­ish the kind reader earnestly to consider my reply to Micron's confession, and to judge it with a frank, impartial heart. I trust, by the grace of God, that if he do so he will discover the adulteration and deceit of our opponents in great clearness; and he will see, on the other hand, that the truth is with us.

In the first place, if we compare the verb­al confession which he made to us, with his confession in writing, he appears to be as slippery as an eel. For at the time of the discussion he confessed repeatedly before us all, that the crucified Christ Jesus had no father or near father; and says so yet at different places in his writing. Neverthe­less he now comes and writes, but without the truth, that they repeatedly confessed before us, that the Son of God died for us. He repeats the same song, but he sings it to the unintelligent, and to a little better tune.

It would sound too much out of tune thus bluntly to forsake the crucified Christ Jesus., and say, that he had no Father, as he did before us.

In fact; I do not know what to say or to think of this man. Now the man Christ is the Son of God, then again he is not; now God is his Father, then again, he had no father. For be writes pointedly that the man Christ, who died for us was generated not of God, but of the seed of Mary, and that he had no father. If he then, be of her seed, And not generated of God, and if he had no father, as he says, then it is plainly falsehood, lies and deceit, to say that the Son of God died for us. If we take the best view as to his meaning he can be no more than an adopted, or a nominal Son, with­out truth, let him gloze the matter over as much as he can. I will leave the impartial reader to consider whether this is a simple and plain reasoning according to the truth, or an equivocal and dark .argument of falsehood.

Now observe, first, his equivocation to­gether with the unconformable, wavering, lightminded foundation of his doctrine, and his intolerable error, to teach that the crucified Christ Jesus was not God's own true Son, but merely a nominal Son, as was heard. I do not see what greater blasphemy one could commit. Yet he is a good teach­er and writer, and that for the reason that he has so finely, but falsely, portrayed the old heretic, Menno.

Thirdly, so long as they do not prove to us by the Scriptures that the Son of God is called the son of man, and the son of man, the Son of God for the reason that there was a union of the two as they frequently assert without the Scripture, so long, they mistake the truth as often as they call the Son of God the son of man, and the son of man the Son of God; for the name is given, as Micron himself confesses, in truth and in fact. And how this assertion of his agrees therewith, the reader may consider. To mock man is disreputable; but to mock God is too abominable and blasphemous.

Fourthly, so long. as they do not prove to us by the Scriptures, that such union took place, as they assert, so long it is the lies and deceit of the old serpent, as it is not according to Scripture. For it is manifest that it is no union, as they call it, but a fearful division of the most holy and undi­vided person of Christ, whereby he manifestly388 makes two persons and sons in Christ, which are born of two different persons, at two different times, in two different forms; that he robs the crucified Christ Jesus of his beloved Father, and the Father of his only begotten, beloved Son; that he makes the greater part of the most holy flesh of Christ of gentile origin; that he esteems the man Christ no higher than an adopted or nominal Son of God; that he points us to an unholy, sinful, accursed offering, to an impure seat of justice, High Priest, Savior, Mediator, Advocate, and Christ, of the un­holy, sinful, accursed and created flesh of Adam; that in fact, he makes Mary buth the father and mother of Christ; that he breaks and disputes the whole Scriptures, together with the ordinances of God con­cerning generation; and that he includes so many abominable inconsistencies in Christ that a feeling heart is pained thereat, when the matter is earnestly considered.

Behold, upon such a foundation has Mi­cron built his false doctrine of the union of the Son of God, which he teaches all through his book, in so many smooth sentences and garbled Scriptures. It is easily perceived what kind of an abomination, Babylon, the mother of whoredom, pours from her golden cup, by her messengers and servants. Woe unto those that drink thereof; for she will so enchant them that they will become drunk, and fall.

« Prev MICRON'S CONFESSION, IN HIS NARRATIVE, THAT… Next »
Please login or register to save highlights and make annotations
Corrections disabled for this book
Proofing disabled for this book
Printer-friendly version





Advertisements



| Define | Popups: Login | Register | Prev Next | Help |