What’s The Big Deal?
Here’s a little something to chew on that I am looking for feedback on…
What are the implications, effects, results, logistical/theological problems with the idea that Jesus was NOT God, but a man (Adam 2.0) partially conceived by God (thus the title ‘The Son of God’) that lived a perfect life, died on a cross and rose from the dead?
For the sake of the exercise, “Because the Bible doesn’t teach that, look at this chapter and verse…” is NOT what I’m going for. I am wanting to explore more of how it effects things systemically on a practical theological level. Is it that big a difference if Jesus was God or a perfect man? Either way, the perfect sacrifice was made for our redemption, right?
Let the games begin!
(No, my church doesn’t teach this and I’m not personally considering it as truth.)
September 27th, 2007 at 4:46 pm
Would the sacrifice of a man (even a perfect one) be sufficient to pay for the sins of all? The fact that He was diety made His sacrifice sufficient for others and not just for Himself.
September 27th, 2007 at 4:56 pm
Right off the bat, you lose the atonement. If Jesus was not God in the flesh, then his death on the cross cannot pay for the sin of anyone else. Given you premise that he actually lived a perfect life (while still not being God himself) I might be willing to grant that he could pay for the sin of one other person, but certainly not for all mankind.
Of course, the need for sin to be paid for in the first place is inextricably tied up in the same documents that establish the deity of Christ. If you’re going to discard the authority of scripture and then question the deity of Christ, it’s kind of like telling somebody to discard the rules of arithmetic and then asking them “What is 2 + 2?”
September 27th, 2007 at 5:11 pm
Hugh thinks Jesus would be able to atone for one other person, not for all mankind. Not a very logical argument, imo. Rather arbitrary.
How come Adam could bring upon himself the judgment of sin, with all mankind inheriting that same sin nature and suffering the consequences of that judgment? (Sounds a bit unfair that a baby who dies before he can decide about right and wrong, could be condemned because of one man’s sin.)
If the previous makes sense at all, does it not make sense then that redemption can also come through one man? If Adam’s unrighteousness is imputed to us all at birth, why would Jesus’ righteousness not be imputed to us on the same basis at rebirth?
September 27th, 2007 at 5:39 pm
Wow, talk about a kettle of fish (no pun intended). This is of course a huge discussion, and one that has been wrangled with many times over the centuries. I’m not denying that there is one true answer–I’m just saying that by proposing it as you are, David, and asking for the ramifications, I can’t help but suggest that anyone sincerely interested in the topic go back to the historical debates (rather than try to rehash them on a blog, which will be inevitably incomplete).
People have so many different perspectives coming to the question that it would seem nearly impossible to satisfactorily discuss things in this format.
For instance, we see Joe’s response, questioning why “Jesus’ righteousness [would] not be imputed to us on the same basis at rebirth [as Adam's sin was]?” So what is he saying? Is he arguing against salvation coming by faith? and that it’s unfair for God to regard humans as damned until then? Well, goodness, now we’re questioning the root of the gospel, and we’re revisiting roads traveled upon so often over the years.
I’m not denying we need to be prepared to defend the faith: we must. But I am questioning how reasonable it is to expect to have an effective debate on such a huge subject without giving recourse to those who have traveled it far better than we could. No, not everyone wants to become a theologian, nor is prepared to read through their deep thoughts to understand their conclusions.
But the assertion put forth is heresy, plain and simple. The fact that some will see that and regard me as a hopeless conservative just demonstrates that they’ve not read the history of the church which has refuted this and all other heresies over and over.
If someone truly wanted to understand the origin and nature of them, and their implications, and refutations, and counter-refutations, and so on, so as to really be able to debate such a point, they really have to turn to (or point one to) resources that elaborate on them. An excellent example is Heresies, but Harold Brown, or “Our Legacy” by John Hannah, Chapter 4, “The Person of Christ: Meet the God-man”. There are of course many others.
Heck, even wikipediea (or theopedia) will offer ample coverage. Just look at topics like docetism, the monophesyte and monothelete controversies, trinitarianism, arianism, the works of Iraneus, Origen, and Athanasius (and those are just the EARLY fathers) and the counils of Chalcedon, and the creeds like Nicene, and how they came to be.
This sort of stuff has been debated over and over. I do believe God wills that this be so. It’s for our benefit and that of preparing the hearts of those otherwise disinclined to the truth. Again, I’m not arguing against the discussion. I’m just saying that there’s SO much to the subject that the best answer to such a question, if the person asking it of you was sincere, is to point them to the many, MANY previous debates that do a far better job of laying out the answer to those questions you ask.
Just my first thoughts in response, since you asked. Others here may be more succinct and helpful.
September 27th, 2007 at 6:46 pm
Charlie says: ‘For instance, we see Joe’s response, questioning why “Jesus’ righteousness [would] not be imputed to us on the same basis at rebirth [as Adam’s sin was]?” So what is he saying? Is he arguing against salvation coming by faith?’
I’m not at all arguing against salvation coming by faith (which is a gift of God to those whom He predestined). All I was saying is that it is easy for us to accept that Adm’s sinfulness is counted against us all; why is it not as easy to accept that the second Adam’s righteousness is imputed to us when we are born again, or come to faith, or whatever term you’d like to use.
And I think it’s interesting that you quote some of the early fathers. Those are the guys who realized they cannot make as many converts with a “one God” theology - hence the elevation of Jesus to a state that none of the apostles (or himself) ascribed to him. You are right that there is indeed very much written about this topic - it seemingly needs much explaining in order to justify it, especially when you read just the Word and see that Jesus never claimed any equality with God, nor once said that he’s God the Son, but called himself the son of God.
If the apostles truly accepted Jesus as God, why do we never read it in anything they have written?
And if Jesus is God, then we have two entities in heaven right now. Two Gods. One sitting on the right hand of the other and praying to the other, yet two Gods. No wonder it needed all the explaining and all the councils and all the creeds and all the tomes through the years.
September 27th, 2007 at 7:08 pm
Wow Joe, welcome to the fun. It’s good to meet you. I wasn’t expecting anyone to present counters to create a debate. (It is the world wide web thought.)
I think you’re taking the subject a bit off course though with the “unfairness” of predestination, church history, etc.
Stick with the practical implications — like your “two Gods” example.
Carry on!
September 27th, 2007 at 7:48 pm
Okay, let’s look at this way. If by one man’s sin (Adam 1.0) ALL who have lived after him were made sinful, then could it work the other way? Meaning, by one man’s righteousness ALL that come after him are made righteous (Adam 2.0). The problem here is that we know not ALL are made righteous based on practical knowledge that sin is so prevalent. So, my point is there has to be more than just a perfect man. If Jesus was ONLY a perfect man then he alone is the only one who could go to heaven based on the Law. Eternal life was not imputed to ALL who come after him like sin was imputed to All men who follow Adam 1.0. So, we might believe that Jesus was a perfect man but what does that do for us except prove that he was perfect and we are not? Enter the God-Man and we have a different story.
September 27th, 2007 at 7:56 pm
Tim, I think you missed the qualifier of birth (in Adam’s case) or rebirth (for those who come to faith in Christ. So ALL who are born after Adam, are sinful, and ALL who are born again are made righteous because of Jesus’ sinless life and sacrifice.
And I don’t follow why Jesus had to be God in order to atone for the sins of all. Are you saying that God had to die? And how can God die? Jesus died - what happened to the God part? Why did Jesus pray so frequently and faithfully if he were not the son of God, but God Himself?
And I still don’t have an answer of what you are doing with having two entities, both God, in heaven.
September 27th, 2007 at 8:22 pm
My argument is Jesus had to be God or he couldn’t have lived a perfect life in the first place. It takes a perfect sacrifice to atone for sins doesn’t it? Can a man be perfect on his own? Or, are you saying God made Jesus different from other men so he could be perfect? Was he not a “real” man then? Only God is sinless.
September 27th, 2007 at 8:37 pm
I agree with Hugh that you cannot take the scriptures off the table and then ask this question. It is the scriptures that tell us we need a Savior in the first place. We can’t point to the Bible to show our need for a Savior and then cast it aside when we begin to talk about the characteristics of that Savior.
September 27th, 2007 at 8:38 pm
Well, the first Adam was sinless too. Jesus was certainly different in that he was God’s only begotten son - he did not share the sinful nature, and lest David pulls me back on track again, I won’t go into how the baby’s blood is separate from the mother’s, etc. If Jesus “couldn’t” sin because he was God, what virtue was there in him resisting temptation, etc?
September 27th, 2007 at 9:56 pm
Joe, I’m sorry, but you keep bringing up points that have been debated to death and consistently refuted by numerous councils. On the one hand you affirm imputed righteousness, but then you question whether Jesus declares himself to be God, and you wonder how Jesus (if one with God) could die, and even how he could be born sinless if indeed born human.
Granted, this stuff is challenging to our limited human understanding, and many sects and leaders have tried to elevate their understanding to the level of truth. But God gave us His Word with all the information we need to wrestle with these debates, and my point is simply that they’ve been wrestled with amply before.
It’s so tempting for us as humans to keep thinking, “ah, but folks haven’t considered this perspective, otherwise how could they believe what they do?” Again, that’s our limited human perspective trying to take in the full counsel of God’s Word and the infinite riches of his plan of redemption.
Yet you contend that those early (and recurrent) debates on a topic like the Trinity simply prove that it “seemingly needs much explaining in order to justify it”. Yikes. Have you really studied it all? Do you really side with those who are constantly refuted, even declared anathema?
How about I quote Santayana instead? “Those who cannot remember the past are condemned to repeat it.”
You present yourself as a believer, and I don’t think we know each other so I can only go on what you’re saying to try to understand your perspective. (Even then, 1 Cor 2:11 reminds us that “who among men knows the thoughts of a man except the man’s spirit within him?”)
But I hear you repeatedly contending against things that are presented as orthodox Christian belief. Though it seems from David’s comments to you that you’re not the one who raised the question he’s asked, you sure seem representative of that perspective.
Amazing that you found your way here so quickly, but to God be the glory.
You’re certainly free to disagree with the truths that have been formulated (recovered) by way of classic Christian doctrine. I would just recommend that you lean not on your own understanding—even on your reading of the Bible. It’s easy to pull out quotes to prove a point, but that’s why we have hermeneutics—and systematic theology which (reformed in particular) goes further to present a clear picture that answers many of your concerns and informs those who will consider it as we each wrestle with such contentions.
Still, as valuable as such understanding is, the 1 Cor 2 chapter goes on to point out that spiritual truths are taught in spiritual words, not by human wisdom but by the Spirit. I pray that God gives you (and all of us) that counsel and comfort as we struggle.
September 27th, 2007 at 11:06 pm
Joe, another reason God would not create Jesus (I’m talking about the made up hypothetical Jesus in this blog) to be a perfect son/sacrifice who is not also fully God is because this would steal Glory from God. People would worship a Jesus as their Savior/Redeemer/Friend who was not truly God. My point here is it is against God’s nature to allow Glory to go to anyone but Himself. In this scenario, Glory would be going to his son who is not God. This can’t be.
September 27th, 2007 at 11:23 pm
Dude,
Where in the world do you folks find the time to contemplate your navel like this? I am killing myself to stay on top of my day job, working side gigs here and there and trying to raise children. We are so out of steam when we get home that we struggle with getting the energy to make (buy) something to eat before the kids need to be in bed. And there’s homework that needs to be done, dogs to be fed, etc., etc… I don’t mind thinking about hypotheticals so much as I can’t believe there is this many people who have time to read all of them and reply.
Keep thinking, but don’t neglect your wife, children, or employer to do so.
- Ya I know you know who it is David and I don’t care; so there!
September 27th, 2007 at 11:43 pm
If I were a religious leader in Jesus day, I would never think Jesus has to be “God” and neither would you. Where is that in the O.T.? So, what happened to make it so needful today? Are we forcing the issue now? Have we created something that is not based on the O.T. teaching? What makes it essential? Also, are we wrong to worship the Holy Spirit? Is there an order in our worship that is THE way to do it? Why isn’t this idolatry… because a Council said it wasn’t? Does anyone else think this is kinda nutty?
‘Oh, by the way, I didn’t even mention the weird reality that all of a sudden there is a 3rd person in a thing called the “Trinity” after how many thousands of years? Are we just coloring this stuff in as we go or what? In 1000 years could we have another Bible and a fourth person in the Trinity…why not? (be careful how you answer this or you may do what the people in the O.T. would have said…before Jesus and the Holy Spirit showed up).
Just trying to identify the lines we are supposed to be coloring in…
BTW. The whole “glory” thing Tim mentioned doesn’t really wash - doesn’t the Bible say that the whole earth is filled with His glory? So, is the earth stealing glory too? Also, if God is so powerful, don’t you think He could work around this?
September 27th, 2007 at 11:56 pm
Dear WP:5646,
Can you answer any of the items raised without a question? Do you have answers to add to the mix? Do you believe that there is absolute truth? Do you think we can be sure of the meaning of certain things? If we have a fuller image of who God is in the N.T. does that in any way take away from the Character of God in the O.T.?
We have questions, and apparently so do you, right?
-is this thing on?
September 27th, 2007 at 11:58 pm
Where is that in the O.T.? Please Read Isaiah 9:6, 7:14.
September 28th, 2007 at 12:02 am
Withheld can’t look away!
September 28th, 2007 at 12:17 am
The whole “glory” thing Tim mentioned doesn’t really wash - See Isaiah 42:8, 44:11.
doesn’t the Bible say that the whole earth is filled with His glory? This is found in Isaiah 6:3 and Psalm 72:19. The earch is full of His Glory because it gives Him glory. His creation glorifies himself. It’s not stealing Glory from him, but giving Him Glory.
September 28th, 2007 at 12:19 am
Check that 2nd verse on “glory” thing doesn’t really way: I meant Isaiah 48:11…
September 28th, 2007 at 12:34 am
The scriptures are not off the table per se, I just want to avoid the typical, “because the Bible says so” train wreck. I’m more interested in the practicality of it all.
Charlie mentioned a “classic Christian doctrine” and systematic theology. Whether Jesus was God or not, what changes in the system? Does it break anything? Is it a significant break? How so?
Some might say that I sound like WP#5646, but I would argue that WP#5646 sounds like me.
September 28th, 2007 at 2:05 am
I think Tim might be on to something …
If Jesus was only a perfect man, then the means of salvation is to have faith in Man 2.0. What does having faith entail? Worship?
Matthew 28:9,17 - After His resurrection, His disciples worshipped Him.
Luke 24:52 - Even after He had ascended back to heaven, they worshipped Him.
Hebrews 1:6 - Angels are instructed by God to worship Jesus.
What does Romans 1:25 tell us about worshiping created things instead of the Creator?
September 28th, 2007 at 6:30 am
To come along side of Tim/Dave’s argument I would add this. If Jesus were merely a man and his death were sufficient for me to enter into heaven if I placed my faith and trust in him, I would most definitely praise and worship him for saving me from the wrath of the OT God….wouldn’t you? This most certainly creates quite a problem with verses like Exodus 20:3-You shall have no other gods before me and Exodus 20:4-You shall not make for yourself a carved image…….
Conversely, though, if He were God Himself then my worship of Him would comply in full with the commands we find in Exodus 20 and elsewhere. The worship and praise and trusing in for salvation of a non-god Jesus is idolotry.
September 28th, 2007 at 8:56 am
So, overlooking the Holy Spirit for simplicity’s sake, it appears that Joe and WP#5646 now have “two gods” (objects of worship) to deal with while the concept of the Trinity allows for “both/and”.
Yes, you have God the Father and God the Son, but BOTH are separate AND one God at the same time.
September 28th, 2007 at 9:19 am
David asked for no scripture here but the ramifications of Jesus not being God. Since when do I ever listen to David.
In thinking about this, I believe the initial question is invalid. In the NT, the Gospels and the Epistles state Jesus is on equal terms of diety with God the Father. From Tim’s examples from Isaiah, we can see God, the LORD Almighty will share His glory with no one.
Going along with that line of thought, the apostle John calls Jesus the LORD Almighty in John 12: 41 after invoking the words of Isaiah 6. Go back and see who is getting Glory in Isaiah 6. It’s YHWH. In John 17:1-6 Jesus asks God the Father to “glorify me in your presence with the glory I had with you before the world began.”
One more passage of scripture that proclaims the deity of Christ. It’s one of my favorites, Colossians 1:13-20. This thought is also reiterated by Paul in Colossians 2:8-10.
Hope that helps!
September 28th, 2007 at 9:53 am
Can somebody repeat the question?
September 28th, 2007 at 10:02 am
I’m not looking for scriptural proof that Jesus was God, but exploring how the idea interacts and influences concepts like the Law, redemption, worship, attributes of God, etc.
What else within a systematic theology do we have to address if Jesus was not God? Does it create theological contradictions or are the ideas interchangeable on a practical level?
I think we’ve identified one, anyone have any more?
September 28th, 2007 at 10:38 am
OK, here’s one I just heard Ravi Zacharias talking about…
He made the point that “God is love,” noting that love is a relational quality that necessarily involves more than one person.
If that’s the case — and it seems to me that it is — then God is necessarily at least a duality, because there would be no way for him to be loving until he created other people.
So if you make God a monad (as opposed to a duality or a trinity), then you lose “love” as an essential attribute of God.
September 28th, 2007 at 11:52 am
I think things went off track here when Joe stated that there was an equivalence between sin entering the world through one man and atonement coming through one man. Guilt and punishment are two different things. As contingent beings, humans have no way to come into being without inheriting Adam’s sin (short of a supernatural conception).
Payment to God for one man’s sin takes one man an eternity. This is unrelated to how the man became guilty.
Therefore, Hugh’s point that only a sacrifice of infinite worth could pay the price (completely) for anyone’s sin in time stands.
September 28th, 2007 at 12:01 pm
More to David’s list… Omnipresence is a divine attribute. Without a divine Christ, we lose the presence of Christ on the Earth, much less indwelling each believer.
September 28th, 2007 at 12:06 pm
Eric, allow me to rephrase your previous point. Or was it Hugh’s?
Addressing the question:
Guilt and punishment are different ideas. No matter how we became sinful, the punishment of sin is infinite — only a sacrifice of infinite worth could pay its infinite price.
September 28th, 2007 at 12:11 pm
Yeah… What Hugh said.
September 28th, 2007 at 12:17 pm
Tim said… “My argument is Jesus had to be God or he couldn’t have lived a perfect life in the first place. It takes a perfect sacrifice to atone for sins doesn’t it?”
I would want to clarify this a little. I would answer ‘yes’ to the question, but I would not agree that Jesus had to be God to live a perfect life. He would have to be born without Adam’s sin, but I would contend that Jesus lived his perfect life in his human nature. Otherwise, there would not have been any value in it. God cannot sin; so, for Jesus (in his divine nature only) to live sinlessly would not have accomplished anything. A man had to fulfill the law.
September 28th, 2007 at 12:28 pm
Eric, yes! Thanks for the clarification.
September 28th, 2007 at 12:48 pm
Eric, when you get time, can you expand on those ideas — where they come from and why they are important? (This is where the use of scripture is acceptable in this discussion.)
September 28th, 2007 at 1:00 pm
I agree with Withheld, this is just naval contemplation.
Let’s focus on what’s important and love Jesus!
September 28th, 2007 at 1:25 pm
Here’s another thought to consider. If Jesus was not God and man (just a perfect man) he would not be eternal (forever was). In Matthew 8:58 he tells the Jews who are questioning his authority. “Truly, truly, I say to you, before Abraham was, I am.”
If the Son of God did not exist until he was born humanly then he’s a liar which would nullify him being the perfect sacrifice.
September 28th, 2007 at 1:40 pm
Sorry for getting my scripture reference wrong (again) Jesus said that in John 8:58, not Matthew. (“Truly, truly, I say to you, before Abraham was, I am.” )
September 28th, 2007 at 2:07 pm
Sheesh, I went to bed and worked, and here’s such a lot now that I’m just gonna jump in again at the end (although I did quickly glance it all).
Tim’s statement that Jesus was in existence before he was born baffles me. I’m not sure how you read that into that verse. We were all existing in God’s foreknowledge before the foundations of the world were laid.
And then I still don’t understand what happened when Jesus died. If God cannot die, what happened to his so-called “God-nature?” And if Jesus was part of God, did God sense a piece of Himself missing at that point?
I don’t know why we have to make this so complicated when Jesus made it so simple himself by his claim to be the son of God, not God the Son. And of course we honor him and call him Lord, which is what many rabbi’s were called. But nowhere are we told to worship him. Our worship is for God, our prayers are to God. We are joint-heirs with Christ, he is the head of the church because God gave him that position, and as such we are ever grateful to him and subject to him, but we don’t start calling him God. He himself is still subject to God too.
As for the God is Love part - I’ve seen many people who love themselves - the fact that God is love does not imply that there had to be another person to love - He is perfect and eternal in himself.
September 28th, 2007 at 2:45 pm
So Joe, do you deny John 1:1-2 and John 1:14 as well where the Word (Christ) was from the beginning of time and then came to live among us in v14? Am I reading into those verses too?
September 28th, 2007 at 2:45 pm
Joe, with all the times we see Jesus’ followers worshiping him, didn’t Jesus have a moral obligation (James 4:17) to redirect their worship to God — at least once — even as Peter did in Acts 10?
Do you also discount the entire book of Revelation?
September 28th, 2007 at 2:54 pm
Moderator Note: I’m wanting to avoid the whole “before there was time” direction (though it is one of my passions) for the sake of productivity.
Related to that, I am more interested in how the concept of omnipresence plays out in time and space as we know it.
September 28th, 2007 at 3:34 pm
This is quite an expression of honor considering the second and third commandments (based on Philippians 2):
When did Jesus actually receive this official position — before or after the sacrifice was complete? To acknowledge his followers referral to him as Lord before he actually was seems a bit presumptuous.
September 28th, 2007 at 6:28 pm
The referral to him as Lord before the crucifixion was nothing more than a title given to any respected rabbi - Jesus taught at the temple - the people acknowledged him as a rabbi, they called him Lord.
And no, I don’t discount Revelation, but Jesus’ elevated position is something that God bestowed on him (Heb 2, Eph 1). I don’t suggest that we are disrespectful in the least towards Jesus - I am deeply indebted to him for my salvation and I will always honor him. But it seems blasphemos to elevate him to God when he never lays claim to that posisiton himself.
I know Charlie said we’re rehashing some old arguments. If anyone can point me to a book where it is clearly spelled out, I’ll read it. To often I see a lot of vague interpretations of verses that are pulled out of context. If this is such a crucial teaching, why don’t we see evidence of it in the episles? Why didn’t the apostles teach it? Why the hinting around? Or have we accepted as truth that which we grew up with, not questioning? Maybe not seeing that the doctrine of the so-called trinity was only established later, perhaps as an effort to draw pagans with many gods to Christianity?
If Jesus calls himself the son of God and never makes any claims to be God, where do we get it from in Scripture? Why would teachings about who may be elders and who not, and all the other stuff be so clear, and the Bible says nothing outright about Jesus being God?
Not trying to be controversial here, just wondering if we are all really thinking for ourselves and reading only the Bible.
September 28th, 2007 at 10:43 pm
Joe,
In response to your many discounts of Jesus being God, I have some questions for you:
Do you think the Bible can be believed/trusted as we have it now?
Other than Jesus having a physical body for thirty years for the purpose of fully being mankind’s representative, how are God and Jesus different?
Would God allow anyone to receive glory other than Himself? Would he share His glory with another? Would He want anyone to worship any other created being?
What about when Jesus says “When you have seen Me, you have seen the Father”? Was He lying?
In Hebrews 1 it states that Jesus is the “exact representation” of the Father. That example has been made like that of a coin being minted. You can get no other coin than what the mold is shaped to be. The Father is the mold, and Jesus would be the resulting coin. It is impossible for Him to be of any other nature than exactly the Father.
I would encourage you to make a list of how Jesus and God are alike. When it comes down to it, we worship God because of Who He is-His character. I believe that when you actually write it down, you will see that they are of exactly the same character. Which is why we worship the Son.
September 28th, 2007 at 11:15 pm
God = all knowing
Jesus = Increased in wisdom (Luke 2:52) and didn’t know when he would return (Matt. 24:36).
Exactly the same?
September 29th, 2007 at 12:02 am
Okay here is the simplest way I can think of how to restate the original question.
Why must Jesus be God? Don’t let your parental instinct take over and say, “Because authority (God, the Bible, whatever) said so, that’s why!”
I’m looking for legitimate practical reasons because I think this is the best approach to avoid M.A.V.C.A.A. (Mutually Assured Verse Context Abuse Accusations) that we have all experienced and now witnessed here.
I think the key is in the idea of “the object of our faith.” I need some help solidifying it though. How does one get from a vague phrase like “have faith in Jesus” to “worship Jesus” being one in the same, in a clear and concise thought process?
September 29th, 2007 at 12:18 am
Joe, claims that no matter what God said earlier about worshipping created things (idolotry), God will be okay with us worshipping the Perfection of Man in Jehovah God’s throne room according to Revelation. Why will we be worshipping him? Because he earned it, he is the worthy one. Man’s Perfection shall be bowed to. Man’s Perfection shall be the name above ALL other names. Man’s Perfection is forever King of Kings and Lord of Lords! Amen!
September 29th, 2007 at 5:52 am
“Why must Jesus be God? Don’t let your parental instinct take over and say, “Because authority (God, the Bible, whatever) said so, that’s why!”
I will reiterate the answer I offered in the very first comment to this blog. He must be God so that His sacrifice would be sufficient to cover the sins of the elect. If he were just a man who happened to hit it out of the park, good for him. He made it. How on the earth would the death of one mere man appease God’s wrath????? I’m not buying the “it’s genetic like sin is from Adam.” Why? Because, even after I am spiritually reborn in this hypothetical scenario I am still a sinner…..I’m not perfect like he had been so how can I stand in front of the Holy God? So, I am trusting in the sacrifice of a mere man for my salvation and I am still a sinner. The fact that God poured out His wrath on Himself, His Son Jesus Christ, is what makes the death of the Son of God sufficient for more than just Himself.
The dual nature of the God Man-100% man and 100% God is wild!!. How can anything be 200%???? I relegate it to the world of the antinomy-an apparent contradiction between two conclusions that seem equally reasonable and necessary. Yet, Lord willing, in His presence one day, we will fully comprehend Jesus-the God Man. I will never place my trust for my salvation in any man-no matter how great, perfect, and elevated he may be by God. Salvation is from the Lord, not man. Thus, without deity, the death of Jesus is merely an interesting side note in history.
September 29th, 2007 at 6:03 am
In addition, if he were merely man and yet was sufficient for salvation for all of the elect, what a dimunation of the effect of sin and slap in the face of God’s holiness. His perfection would be sufficient to “get him in.” The fact that God punished him unnecessarily seems to be sufficient to “get one other person in.” After that, though, (as Hugh stated early on) each additional person that tries to “get in” has no chips to cash in, so to speak. Remember, Jesus is just a man and he already earned his way and one other fortunate persons way into heaven. What about the other 10,000,000 or so beleivers throughout time who are looking to the righteousness of a man? Does anyone see how this scenario makes sin out to be just some little blemish that really isn’t that big a deal? In addition, it makes God’s holiness seems like some cute little standard that we need to try to live up to, but, heck, if we don’t, that man over there took care of it for us.
Doesn’t seem to mesh very well with God’s high standard and his severe jugement of sin through the bible.
September 29th, 2007 at 10:45 am
Must… refrain… from… arguing… Jesus’s… deity….
It’s very hard to stay on-topic here, but I’ll do my best. I think a proper exploration of the nature of redemption is in order. Let’s see…
Scripture supports each of these points, but I have refrained from including references because of general laziness and the level of Biblical literacy that is already assumed in this discussion.
As Greg Kokul says, the doctrine of the Trinity solves problems rather than causing them. Just looking at this little piece of the issue, we see the necessity of Jesus being holy in order to escape wrath Himself and pay for any sins. I believe it’s a safe assumption that no man is holy, so Jesus cannot be a man.
On the other hand, God cannot bleed. It is the uncontested requirement from the days of Noah through the entire OT sacrificial system and all the way to the cross that blood must be shed for the forgiveness of sin. (Read Genesis, Deuteronomy, and Hebrews before you would contest this.) So in order to bleed for the remission of sin, the redeemer had to be human. From this we can deduce that Jesus cannot be God.
So we fall on the horns of a dilemma in our quest to define the substitutionary death of Jesus. To obtain substitution (payment for sin), we lose death. To obtain death, we lose substitution. Here we encounter the necessary doctrine of the hypostatic union. (Insert the word “just” after the times I said “Jesus cannot be…” above.) All of redemption falls apart if we lose one or the other (as I believe I’ve shown), but if Jesus were fully God (adequate substitution) and fully man (able to die) then it’s possible. In fact, I submit, in light of all we must understand as truth from the rest of Scripture and related philosophical and theological lines of knowledge, that apart from this doctrine, redemption is impossible.
September 29th, 2007 at 11:05 am
David, I appreciate your frustration with prooftexting, but this whole discussion is based on God’s self-revelation. It’s undeniable. We couldn’t talk about original sin, atonement, or even a personal God except that God reveal it to us (first in the prophets, then in Christ-both passed to us through the Scriptures). For example, we wouldn’t even know that the payment for sin takes an eternity for a man to pay without the revelation we have about Hell from the Scriptures. So, even Hugh’s argument (the best one, I think) falls without referring to an authoritative claim.
September 29th, 2007 at 11:18 am
Jeffrey says: “we see the necessity of Jesus being holy in order to escape wrath Himself and pay for any sins. I believe it’s a safe assumption that no man is holy, so Jesus cannot be a man.”
I agree with the first sentence. How one logically jumps from that to the “safe assumption” in the second sentence, is astounding. If you follow that line of reasoning that no m,an could be holy, therefore Jesus was not holy, therefore Jesus must be God, it follows that there was no reason for the devil to try and tempt Jesus - Jesus couldn’t sin.
How is there any value in the way Jesus faced and overcame temptation if he were God? (Heb2:18) If he was holy, without the possibility to sin, you are taking away what he wrought for us.
Was Adam holy before he sinned?
Maybe instead of “no man is holy, so Jesus cannot be a man” it would be more accurate to reason: no man with sin nature is holy, so Jesus had to be born without sin nature - the second Adam - born of incorruptible seed.
September 29th, 2007 at 11:40 am
What is temptation? Isn’t it when a person not only experiences an external tempt-er, but is “enticed by his own desire” (James 1)? It seems you affirm that Jesus was born without the sin nature that would entice Him from within, so even you can’t say that Jesus’s temptation experiences were identical to ours from a holiness standpoint. The very same book you reference mentions that He was tempted in the same ways we are, except His experience lacked sin within Him (Hebrews 4). Note that it doesn’t say that His temptations were different because He didn’t sin (then it would say “yet without sinning”), but instead because He didn’t have sin within already (it says “yet without sin”). But you already accept that He didn’t have a sin nature. So what is the basis for saying that, rather than being God in the flesh, Jesus was just a man without a sin nature? I don’t get that from Scripture—in fact, I get the impression that no man is born without a sin nature.
Or maybe it’s just better to go back and rephrase every time I said “holy” in my original post to say “infinitely holy.” That’s really what we’re getting at here. After all, sin against an infinite God requires an infinite payment.
October 1st, 2007 at 10:19 am
“I don’t get that from Scripture—in fact, I get the impression that no man is born without a sin nature.”
Jeffrey, wasn’t Adam 1.0 initally without a sin-nature yet he was enticed from within wasn’t he? (No “blaming Eve” jokes here please.)
………
Communication is tough isn’t it? I can’t seem to accurately communicate what I’m trying to do here.
Here’s the idea … other sects and religions that hold the view that Jesus was not God do acknowledge other sections of scripture and other “givens.” They do a good job at constructing a different systematic world-view so I’m trying to find contradictions that are created.
October 2nd, 2007 at 8:27 am
First, I think a huge implication would be God is not be just. Crimes deserve an appropriate punishment or justice is not served. If a good man died on the cross, and God accepted that sacrifice as atonement for the sins of the world, the punishment would not fit the crime. And, God would not be just. If God were not just, we would have no basis for morality, no sense of right and wrong.
Second, I think pdiddy (the rapper?) is right on. If a good man died on the cross for our sins, our sins would be trite. The doctrine of Hell would definitely not fit. I mean come on, forever? It is not a big deal. I think this is the problem all religion gets into, none of them realize the huge hole our sin digs for us. By implication, that would mean God is not righteous or is powerless. Having created all of creation to worship him only to have it go completely wrong in the beginning. Either he does not care that all of creation is in rebellion against him or can do nothing about it.
Third, and this may be reaching, I see God putting on flesh and becoming a man a powerful indicator of his being a personal God. If it were not God that put on flesh to save the elect of creation, he would probably be a god that would not walk in the cool of the day with his favored of creation. He would not go to Abram, Jacob, Gideon, Daniel, and others in the form of theophanies or Christophanies. God would be wholly other, unknowable and unapproachable. Because of this theology, our society would have stagnated like the Greeks, the Chinese, the Arabs and every other. Because they did not tie the knowledge of God to being a consistent knowable being and explore him through his creation.