Where did life begin? (Merged)

Do you believe we have a creator, aka "God"?

  • Total voters
    0
  • Poll closed .
#3,401
#3,401
I’ve changed my mind. Everyone who disagrees with me is going to hell......








Which I also now believe exists just to punish you bunch of pagans!!!














Meh
That doesn’t feel right
 
#3,402
#3,402
Wafflestomper said:
I'd be interested in how you'd explain Jesus in the context of this argument. If Jesus is God then it would seem that the potential for him to become man was actualized. Therefore, he isn't pure actuality.

Is there a feature that distinguishes Jesus from God? Jesus talks to God and refers to "my father in heaven" in the Bible, so it would stand to reason that there is something that distinguishes Jesus from God.
Click to expand...

I apologize for the late reply. The question you asked, while phrased in a way that could be construed as misapplying the terminology and even presuming doctrines that I would argue against, is one that I will answer in a way relevant to what I believe you meant to ask.

Let me be the first to point out that the Trinity cannot be proven through reason alone, because the doctrine is just not implicit in what we can know of the essence of God. To be clear, the doctrine itself is only knowable because of divine revelation. The fact it’s unprovable does not imply that it’s thereby logically indefensible. Suffice it is to say that the doctrine of the Trinity is intelligible, but it also cannot be fully grasped because of the fact we do not and cannot completely know the "inner workings" of God. It is a mystery, in the words of our Church Fathers, "hidden by the veil of faith and enveloped, so to speak, by a kind of darkness." You can certainly dispute the notion that the Son is God, of which is an option explicit in the bible itself (1 Corinthians 15:17), but that is a question of faith and not the doctrine’s intelligibility.

Let’s first note that the Son, Father, and Holy Spirt are co-substantial in the unified divine essence (John 1:1). The only way for the Son to be a potential is if he was created as a being distinct from the Father. To the contrary, the Son was “begotten” by the Father via the means of intellectual generation. In other words, the Son is the result of God’s understanding of himself, of who’s understanding is identical to his essence, which is also identical to his existence. This identity in all three Persons of the Godhead means that the doctrine does not contradict the idea of God being pure actuality. It still must be emphasized, however, that there does exist real distinctions of relation between each person. This to be clear is not a distinction of essence but merely the distinction of how one person proceeds from the former.

To be sure, the compatibility of the Trinity with Scholastic metaphysics is one that is very complex and not well suited for a short summary as it requires painstaking detail and mental gymnastics to be sure that any slight misconception or misapplication of a term is avoided. You can follow this link to get a better understanding of Aquinas on the relation between the Trinity and his system.
 
  • Like
Reactions: 1 person
#3,403
#3,403
JHuntVols said:
I apologize for the late reply. The question you asked, while phrased in a way that could be construed as misapplying the terminology and even presuming doctrines that I would argue against, is one that I will answer in a way relevant to what I believe you meant to ask.

Let me be the first to point out that the Trinity cannot be proven through reason alone, because the doctrine is just not implicit in what we can know of the essence of God. To be clear, the doctrine itself is only knowable because of divine revelation. The fact it’s unprovable does not imply that it’s thereby logically indefensible. Suffice it is to say that the doctrine of the Trinity is intelligible, but it also cannot be fully grasped because of the fact we do not and cannot completely know the "inner workings" of God. It is a mystery, in the words of our Church Fathers, "hidden by the veil of faith and enveloped, so to speak, by a kind of darkness." You can certainly dispute the notion that the Son is God, of which is an option explicit in the bible itself (1 Corinthians 15:17), but that is a question of faith and not the doctrine’s intelligibility.

Let’s first note that the Son, Father, and Holy Spirt are co-substantial in the unified divine essence (John 1:1). The only way for the Son to be a potential is if he was created as a being distinct from the Father. To the contrary, the Son was “begotten” by the Father via the means of intellectual generation. In other words, the Son is the result of God’s understanding of himself, of who’s understanding is identical to his essence, which is also identical to his existence. This identity in all three Persons of the Godhead means that the doctrine does not contradict the idea of God being pure actuality. It still must be emphasized, however, that there does exist real distinctions of relation between each person. This to be clear is not a distinction of essence but merely the distinction of how one person proceeds from the former.

To be sure, the compatibility of the Trinity with Scholastic metaphysics is one that is very complex and not well suited for a short summary as it requires painstaking detail and mental gymnastics to be sure that any slight misconception or misapplication of a term is avoided. You can follow this link to get a better understanding of Aquinas on the relation between the Trinity and his system.
Click to expand...
Yup, the incarnation has always been for me the toughest aspect of classical Christianity to reconcile.
There are scriptural hints, such as John 1 and verses like, the lamb slain since the foundation of the world.
 
Last edited:
  • Like
Reactions: 3 people
#3,404
#3,404
Roustabout said:
Yup, the incarnation has always been for me the toughest aspect of classical Christianity to reconcile.
There are scriptural hints, such as John 1 and verses like, the lamb slain since the foundation of the world.
Click to expand...

I'd love to see Feser respond to the Stanford Encyclopedia page on the topic.
 
#3,405
#3,405
Quote:
Originally Posted by Wafflestomper View Post
I'd be interested in how you'd explain Jesus in the context of this argument. If Jesus is God then it would seem that the potential for him to become man was actualized. Therefore, he isn't pure actuality.

Is there a feature that distinguishes Jesus from God? Jesus talks to God and refers to "my father in heaven" in the Bible, so it would stand to reason that there is something that distinguishes Jesus from God.

JHuntVols said:
I apologize for the late reply. The question you asked, while phrased in a way that could be construed as misapplying the terminology and even presuming doctrines that I would argue against, is one that I will answer in a way relevant to what I believe you meant to ask.

Let me be the first to point out that the Trinity cannot be proven through reason alone, because the doctrine is just not implicit in what we can know of the essence of God. To be clear, the doctrine itself is only knowable because of divine revelation. The fact it’s unprovable does not imply that it’s thereby logically indefensible. Suffice it is to say that the doctrine of the Trinity is intelligible, but it also cannot be fully grasped because of the fact we do not and cannot completely know the "inner workings" of God. It is a mystery, in the words of our Church Fathers, "hidden by the veil of faith and enveloped, so to speak, by a kind of darkness." You can certainly dispute the notion that the Son is God, of which is an option explicit in the bible itself (1 Corinthians 15:17), but that is a question of faith and not the doctrine’s intelligibility.

Let’s first note that the Son, Father, and Holy Spirt are co-substantial in the unified divine essence (John 1:1). The only way for the Son to be a potential is if he was created as a being distinct from the Father. To the contrary, the Son was “begotten” by the Father via the means of intellectual generation. In other words, the Son is the result of God’s understanding of himself, of who’s understanding is identical to his essence, which is also identical to his existence. This identity in all three Persons of the Godhead means that the doctrine does not contradict the idea of God being pure actuality. It still must be emphasized, however, that there does exist real distinctions of relation between each person. This to be clear is not a distinction of essence but merely the distinction of how one person proceeds from the former.

To be sure, the compatibility of the Trinity with Scholastic metaphysics is one that is very complex and not well suited for a short summary as it requires painstaking detail and mental gymnastics to be sure that any slight misconception or misapplication of a term is avoided. You can follow this link to get a better understanding of Aquinas on the relation between the Trinity and his system.
Click to expand...

John 14:10 -- Don't you believe that I am in the Father, and that the Father is in me? The words I say to you I do not speak on my own authority. Rather, it is the Father, living in me, who is doing his work.

John 16:13 -- But when he, the Spirit of truth, comes, he will guide you into all the truth. He will not speak on his own; he will speak only what he hears, and he will tell you what is yet to come.

Acts 1:8 -- But you will receive power when the Holy Spirit comes on you; and you will be my witnesses in Jerusalem, and in all Judea and Samaria, and to the ends of the earth."

Acts 2:4 -- All of them were filled with the Holy Spirit and began to speak in other tongues as the Spirit enabled them.
 
#3,406
#3,406
. THE DEITY OF JESUS CHEIST.
1. DIVINE NAMES ARE GIVEN TO HIM.
a) He is Called God.

John 1:1—"The Word was God." Heb. 1:8—"But unto the Son he saith, Thy throne, O God, is for ever." John 1:18—"The only begotten Son (or better "only begotten God")." Absolute deity is here ascribed to Christ. 20:28-"My Lord and my God." Not an expression of amazement, but a confession of faith. This confession accepted by Christ, hence equivalent to the acceptance of deity, and an assertion of it on Christ's part. Rom. 9:5—"God blessed forever." Tit. 2:13—"The great God and our Saviour Jesus Christ." 1 John,5:20—"His Son Jesus Christ. This is the true God." In all these passages Christ is called God.

It may be argued that while Christ is here called God, yet that does not argue for nor prove His deity, for human judges are also called "gods" in John 10:35—"If he called them gods unto whom the word of God came." True, but it is then used in a secondary and relative sense, and not in the absolute sense as when used of the Son.

b) He is Called the Son of God.

The references containing this title are numerous. Among others see Matt. 16:16, 17; 8:29; 14:33; Mark 1:1; 14:61; Luke 1:35; 4:41. While it may be true that in the synoptic Gospels Jesus may not be said to have claimed this title for Himself, yet He unhesitatingly accepted it when used of Him and addressed to Him by others. Further, it seems clear from the charges made against Him that He did claim such an honor for Himself. Matt. 27:40, 43—"For he said, I am the Son of God." Mark 14:61, 62 —"Art thou the Christ, the Son of the Blessed" (Luke 22:70—"Art thou then the Son of God? And Jesus said, I am." In John's Gospel, however, Jesus plainly calls Himself "the Son of God" (5:25; 10:36 11:4). Indeed, John's Gospel begins with Christ as God: "The Word was God," and ends with the same thought: "My Lord and my God" (20:28). (Chapter 21 is an epilogue.)

Dr. James Orr says, in speaking of the title Son of God as ascribed to Christ: "This title is one to which there can be no finite comparison or analogy. The oneness with God which it designates is not such reflex influence of the divine thought and character such as man and angels may attain, but identity of essence constituting him not God-like alone, but God. Others may be children of God in a moral sense; but by this right of elemental nature, none but He; He is herein, the only Son; so little separate, so close to the inner divine life which He expresses, that He is in the bosom of the Father. This language denotes two natures homogeneous, entirely one, and both so essential to the Godhead that neither can be omitted from any truth you speak of it."

If when He called Himself "the Son of God" He did not mean more than that He was a son of God, why then did the high priest accuse Him of blasphemy when He claimed this title (Matt. 26: 61-63)? Does not Mark 12:6—"Having yet therefore one son, his well-beloved, he sent him also last unto them, saying, They will reverence my son," indicate a special sonship? The sonship of Christ is human and historical, it is true; but it is more: it is transcendent, unique, solitary. That something unique and solitary lay in this title seems clear from John 5:18—"The Jews sought the more to kill Him….because he….said….also that God was His Father, making Himself equal with God."

The use of the word "only begotten" also indicates the uniqueness of this sonship. For use of the word see Luke 7:12—"The only son of his mother." 9:38—"For he is mine only child." This word is used of Christ by John in 1:14, 18; 3:16, 18; 1 John 4:9, and distinguishes between Christ as the only Son, and the "many….children of God" (John 1:12, 13). In one sense Christ has no brethren: He stands absolutely alone. This contrast is clearly emphasized in John 1:14, 18—"only begotten Son," and 1:12 (R. V.)—"many….children." He is the Son from eternity: they "become" sons in time. He is one; they are many. He is Son by nature; they are sons by adoption and grace. He is Son of the same essence with the Father; they are of different substance from the Father.

c) He is Called The Lord.

Acte 4:33; 16:31; Luke 2:11; Acts 9:17; Matt. 22:43-45. It is true that this term is used of men, e.g., Acts 16:30—"Sirs (Lords), what must I do to be saved?" John 12:21—"Sir (Lord), we would see Jesus." It is not used, however, in this unique sense, as the connection will clearly show. In our Lord's day, the title "Lord" as used of Christ was applicable only to the Deity, to God. "The Ptolemies and the Roman Emperors would allow the name to be applied to them only when they permitted themselves to be deified. The archaeological discoveries at Oxyrhyncus put this fact beyond a doubt. So when the New Testament writers speak of Jesus as Lord, there can be no question as to what they mean." —Wood.

d) Other Divine Names are Ascribed to Him:

"The first and the last" (Rev. 1:17). This title used of Jehovah in Isa. 41:4; 44:6; 48:12. "The Alpha and Omega" (Rev. 22:13, 16); cf. 1:8 where it is used of God.

2. DIVINE WORSHIP IS ASCRIBED TO JESUS CHRIST.
The Scriptures recognize worship as being due to God, to Deity alone: Matt. 4:10—"Worship the Lord thy God, and him only." Rev. 22:8, 9—"I fell down to worship before the feet of the angel…Then saith he unto me, See thou do it not:…. worship God." John was not allowed even to worship God at the feet of the angel. Acts 14:14, 15; 10:25, 26—Cornelius fell down at the feet of Peter, and worshipped him. "But Peter took him up, saying, Stand up; I myself also am a man." See what an awful fate was meted out to Herod because he dared to accept worship that belonged to God only (Acts 12:20-25). Yet Jesus Christ unhesitatingly accepted such worsnip, indeed, called for it (John 4:10). See John 20:28; Matt. 14:33; Luke 24:52; 5:8.

The homage given to Christ in these scriptures would be nothing short of sacrilegious idolatry if Christ were not God. There seemed to be not the slightest reluctance on the part of Christ in the acceptance of such worship. Therefore either Christ was God or He was an imposter. But His whole life refutes the idea of imposture. It was He who said, "Worship God only"; and He had no right to take the place of God if He were not God.

God himself commands all men to render worship to the Son, even as they do to Him. John 5:23, 24—"That all men should honor the Son, even as they honor the Father." Even the angels are commanded to render worship to the Son. Heb. 1:6—"And let all the angels of God worship him." Phil. 2:10—"That at the name of Jesus every knee should bow."

It was the practice of the apostles and the early church to render worship to Christ: 2 Cor. 12:8-10—"I besought the Lord." Acts 7:59—"And they stoned Stephen, calling upon God, and saying, Lord Jesus, receive my spirit." 1 Cor. 1:2—"Them that…call upon the name of Jesus Christ our Lord."

The Christians of all ages have not been satisfied with admiring
Christ, they have adored and worshipped Him. They have approached
His person in the attitude of self-sacrifice and worship as in the
presence of and to a God.
Robert Browning quoted, in a letter to a lady in her last illness, the words of Charles Lamb, when in a gay fancy with some friends as to how he and they would feel if the greatest of the dead were to appear suddenly in flesh and blood once more—on the first suggestion, and "if Christ entered this room?" changed his tone at once, and stuttered out as his manner was when moved: "You see —if Shakespeare entered, we should all rise; if Christ appeared, we must kneel."

3. HE POSSESSES THE QUALITIES AND PROPERTIES OF DEITY.
a) Pre-Existence.

John 1:1—"In the beginning"; cf. Gen 1:1 John 8:58—"Before Abraham was, I am." That is to say: "Abraham's existence presupposes mine, not mine his. He was dependent upon me, not I upon him for existence. Abraham came into being at a certain point of time, but I am." Here is simple being without beginning or end. See also John 17:5; Phil. 2:6; Col. 1:16, 17.

b) Self-Existence and Life-Giving Power:

John 5:21, 26—"For as the Father raiseth up the dead and quickeneth them, even so the Son quickeneth whom he will." "For as the Father hath life in himself, so hath he given to the Son to have life in himself." 1:4—"In him was life." See also 14:6; Heb. 7:16; John 17:3-5; 10:17, 18. These scriptures teach that all life—physical, moral, spiritual, eternal—has its source in Christ.

c) Immutability:

Heb. 13:8—"Jesus Christ the same yesterday, and today, and for ever." See also 1:12. All nature, which like a garment He throws around Him is subject to change and decay; Jesus Christ is the same always, He never changes. Human teachers, such as are spoken of in the context, may change, but He, the Christ, never.

d) All the Fulness of the Godhead Dwelt in Him:

Col. 2:9—Not merely the divine perfections and attributes of Deity, but (theotes) the very essence and nature of the Godhead. He was not merely God-like; He was God.

4. DIVINE OFFICES ABE ASCRIBED TO HIM.
a) He is the Creator:

John 1:3—"All things were made by Him." In the creation He was the acting power and personal instrument. Creation is the revelation of His mind and might. Heb. 1:10 shows the dignity of the Creator as contrasted with the creature. Col. 1:16 contradicts the Gnostic theory of emanations, and shows Christ to be the creator of all created things and beings. Rev. 3:14—"The beginning of the creation of God," means "beginning" in the active sense, the origin, that by which a thing begins to be. Col. 1:15—"first-born," not made; compare with Col. 1:17, where the "for" of v. 16 shows Him to be not included in the "created things," but the origin of and superior to them all. He is the Creator of the universe (v. 16), just as He is the Head of the church (v. 18).

b) He is the Upholder of All Things:

Col. 1:17; Heb. 1:3. The universe is neither self-sustaining nor is it forsaken by God (Deism). Christ's power causes all things to hold together. The pulses of universal life are regulated and controlled by the throbbings of the mighty heart of Christ.

c) He Has the Right to Forgive Sins.

Mark 2:5-10. Luke 7:48—"And he said unto her, Thy sins are forgiven." Certain it is that the Pharisees recognized that Christ was here assuming a divine prerogative. No mere man had any right to forgive sins. God alone could do that. Hence the Pharisees' charge of blasphemy. This is no declaration of forgiveness, based upon the knowledge of the man's penitence. Christ does not merely declare sins forgiven. He actually forgives them. Further, Jesus, in the parable of the Two Debtors (Luke 7), declares that sins were committed against Himself (cf. Psa. 51:4—"Against thee, thee only, have I sinned").

d) The Raising of the Bodies of Men is Ascribed to Him:

John 6:39, 40, 54; 11:25. Five times it is here declared by Jesus that it is His prerogative to raise the dead. It is true that others raised the dead, but under what different conditions? They worked by a delegated power (Acts 9:34); but Christ, by His own power (John 10:17, 18). Note the agony of Elisha and others, as compared with the calmness of Christ. None of these claimed to raise the dead by his own power, nor to have any such power in the general resurrection of all men. Christ did make such claims.

e) He is to be the Judge of All Men;

John 5:22—"For the Father judgeth no man, but hath committed all judgment unto the Son." 2 Tim. 4:1; Acts 17:31; Matt. 25:31-46. The Man of the Cross is to be the Man of the throne. The issues of the judgment are all in His hand.

5. DIVINE ATTRIBUTES ARE POSSESSED BY HIM.
a) Omnipotence.

Matt 28:18—"All power is given unto me in heaven and in earth." Rev. 1:8; John 17:2; Eph. I:20-22. Here is power over three realms: First, all power on earth: over disease (Luke 4:38-41); death (John 11); nature, water into wine (John 2); tempest (Matt. 8). Second, all power in hell: over demons (Luke 4:35, 36, 41); evil angels (Eph. 6). Third, all power in heaven: (Eph. 1:20-22). Finally, power over all things: (Heb. 2:8; 1:3; Matt. 28:18).

b) Omniscience.

John 16:30—"Now are we sure that thou knowest all things." 2:24; Matt. 24; 25; Col. 2:3. Illustrations: John 4:16-19; Mark 2:8; John 1:48. "Our Lord always leaves the impression that He knew all things in detail, both past and future, and that this knowledge comes from His original perception of the events. He does not learn them by acquisition. He simply knows them by immediate perception. Such utterances as Matt. 24 and Luke 21 carry in them a subtle difference from the utterances of the prophets. The latter spoke as men who were quite remote in point of time from their declaration of unfolding events. Jesus spoke as one who is present in the midst of the events which He depicts. He does not refer to events in the past as if He were quoting from the historic narrative in the Old Testament. The only instance which casts doubt upon this view is Mark 13:32. The parallel passage in Matthew omits, in many ancient versions, the words; "Neither the Son." The saying in Mark is capable of an interpretation which does not contradict this view of His omniscience. This is an omniscience nevertheless, which in its manifestation to men is under something of human limitation."—Wood.

This limitation of knowledge is no argument against the infallibility of those things which Jesus did teach: for example, the Mosaic authorship of the Pentateuch. That argument, says Liddon, involves a confusion between limitation of knowledge and liability to error; whereas, plainly enough, a limitation of knowledge is one thing, and fallibility is another. St. Paul says, "We know in part," and "We see through a glass darkly." Yet Paul is so certain of the truth of that which he teaches, as to exclaim, "But though we, or an angel from heaven, preach any other gospel unto you than that which we have preached unto you, let him be accursed." Paul clearly believed in his own infallibility as a teacher of religious truth, and the church of Christ has ever since regarded his epistles as part of an infallible literature. But it is equally clear that Paul believed his knowledge of truth to be limited. Infallibility does not imply omniscience, any more than limited knowledge implies error. If a human teacher were to decline to speak upon a given subject, by saying that he did not know enough about it, this would not be a reason for disbelieving him when he proceeded to speak confidently upon a totally different subject, thereby at least implying that he did not know enough to warrant his speaking. On the contrary, his silence in the one case would be a reason for trusting his statements in the other. The argument which is under consideration in the text would have been really sound, if our Saviour had fixed the date of the day of judgment and the event had shown him to be mistaken. Why stumble over the limitation of this attribute and not over the others? Did He not hunger and thirst, for example? As God He is omnipresent, yet as man He is present only in one place. As God He is omnipotent; yet, on one occasion at least, He could do no mighty works because of the unbelief of men.

c) Omnipresence.

Matt. 18:20—"For where two or three are gathered together in my name, there am I in the midst of them." He is with every missionary (Matt. 28:20). He is prayed to by Christians in every place (1 Cor. 1:2). Prayer would be a mockery if we were not assured that Christ is everywhere present to hear. He fills all things, every place (Eph. 1:23). But such an all pervading presence is true only of Deity.

6. HIS NAME IS COUPLED WITH THAT OF GOD THE FATHER.
The manner in which the name of Jesus Christ is coupled with that of God the Father clearly implies equality of the Son with the Father. Compare the following:

a) The Apostolic Benediction.

2 Cor. 13:14. Here the Son equally with the Father is the bestower of grace.

b) The Baptismal Formula.

Matt. 28:19; Acts 2:38. "In the name," not the names (plural).
How would it sound to say, "In the name of the Father" and of
Moses? Would it not seem sacrilegious? Can we imagine the effect
of such words on the apostles?
c) Other Passages.

John 14:23—"We will come: the Father and I." 17:3—"And this is life eternal that they might know thee, the only true God, and Jesus Christ." The content of saving faith includes belief in Jesus Christ equally with the Father. 10:30—"I and my Father are one." "One" is neuter, not masculine, meaning that Jesus and the Father constitute one power by which the salvation of man is secured. 2 Thess. 2:16, 17—"Now our Lord Jesus Christ himself, and God, even our Father…comfort your hearts." These two names, with a verb in the singular, intimate the oneness of the Father with the Son.

7. THE SELF-CONSCIOUSNESS OF JESUS REGARDING HIS OWN PERSON AND WORK.
It will be interesting to search the Gospel records to ascertain what was in the mind of Jesus concerning Himself—His relation to the Father in particular. What bearing has the testimony of Jesus upon the question of His deity? Is the present Christian consciousness borne out by the Gospel narratives? Is Jesus Christ a man of a much higher type of faith than ours, yet one with whom we believe in God? Or is He, equally with God, the object of our faith? Do we believe with Him, or on Him? Is there any indication in the words ascribed to Jesus, as recorded in the Gospels, of a consciousness on His part of His unique relation to God the Father? Is it Jesus Himself who is responsible for the Christian's consciousness concerning His deity, or is the Church reading into the Gospel accounts something that is not really there? Let us see.

a) As Set Forth in the Narrative of His Visit to the Temple.

Luke 2:41-52. This is a single flower out of the wonderfully enclosed garden of the first thirty years of our Lord's life. The emphatic words, for our purpose, are "thy father," and "my Father." These are the first recorded words of Jesus. Is there not here an indication of the consciousness on the part of Jesus of a unique relationship with His heavenly Father? Mary, not Joseph, asked the question, so contrary to Jewish custom. She said: "Thy father"; Jesus replied in substance: "Did you say my father has been seeking me?" It is remarkable to note that Christ omits the word "father" when referring to His parents, cf. Matt. 12:48; Mark 3:33, 34. "My Father!" No other human lips had ever uttered these words. Men said, and He taught them to say, "Our Father." It is not too much to say that in this incident Christ sees, rising before Him, the great truth that God, and not Joseph, is His Father, and that it is in His true Father's house that He now stands.

b) As Revealed at His Baptism:

Matt. 3:13-17; Mark 1:9-ll; Luke 3:21. Here are some things to remember in connection with Christ's baptism: First, Jesus was well acquainted with the relation of John and his ministry to the Old Testament prophecy, as well as of John's own announcement that he was the Messiah's fore-runner, and that he (John) was not worthy to untie the latchet of Christ's shoes. Second, to come then to John, and to submit to baptism at his hands, would indicate that Jesus conceded the truth of all that John had said. This is emphasized when we remember Jesus' eulogy of John (Matt. 11). Thirdly, There is the descent of the Spirit, and the heavenly voice; what meaning did these things have to Jesus? If Christ's sermon in the synagogue at Nazareth is of any help here, we must believe that at His baptism, so much more than at the age of twelve, He was conscious that in thus being anointed He was associating Himself in some peculiar way with the prophecy of Isaiah, chapters 42 and 61: "Behold my Servant… I have put my Spirit upon Him." All, therefore, that must have been wrapped up in the thought of the "Servant of the Lord" in the Old Testament would assuredly be quickened in his consciousness that day when the Spirit descended upon Him. See also Luke 4:16-17; Acts 10: 38; Matt. 12:28.

But what did the heavenly voice signify to Christ? "This is my beloved Son" takes us back to the second Psalm where this person is addressed as the ideal King of Israel. The last clause—"in whom I am well pleased"—refers to Isaiah 42, and portrays the servant who is anointed and empowered by the endowment of God's Spirit. We must admit that the mind of Jesus was steeped in the prophecies of the Old Testament, and that He knew to whom these passages referred. The ordinary Jew knew that much. Is it too much to say that on that baptismal day Jesus was keenly conscious that these Old Testament predictions were fulfilled in Him? We think not.

c) As Set Forth in the Record of the Temptation.

Matt. 4:1-11; Mark 1:12, 13; Luke 4:1-13. That Jesus entered into the temptation in the wilderness with the consciousness of the revelation He received, and of which He was conscious at the baptism, seems clear from the narratives. Certain it is that Satan based his temptations upon Christ's consciousness of His unique relation to God as His Son. Throughout the whole of the temptation Satan regards Christ as being in a unique sense the Son of God, the ideal King, through whom the kingdom of God is to be established upon the earth. Indeed, so clearly is the kingship of Jesus recognized in the temptation narrative that the whole question agitated there is as to how that kingdom may be established in the world. It must be admitted that a careful reading of the narratives forces us to the conclusion that throughout all the temptation Christ was conscious of His position with reference to the founding of God's kingdom in the world.

d) As Set Forth in the Calling of the Twelve and the Seventy.

The record of this event is found in Matt. 10; Mark 3:13-19; 6:7-13; Luke 9:1-6; 10:1-14. This important event in the life of our Lord had an important bearing upon His self-consciousness as to His person and work. Let us note some of the details:

First, as to the number, twelve. Is there no suggestion here with reference to the New Jerusalem when the Messiah shall sit upon the throne surrounded by the twelve apostles seated on their thrones? Is not Jesus here conscious of Himself as being the centre of the scene thus described in the Apocalypse?

Second, He gave them power. Is not Jesus here repeating what had been done for Him at His baptism: conveying super-human power? Who can give this power that is strong enough to make even demons obey? No one less than God surely.

Third, note that the message which He committed to the twelve concerned matters of life and death. Not to receive that message would be equivalent to the rejection of the Father.

Fourth, all this is to be done in His name, and for His name's sake. Fidelity to Jesus is that on which the final destiny of men depends. Everything rises or falls in its relation to Him. Could such words be uttered and there be no consciousness on the part of the speaker of a unique relationship to the Father and the things of eternity? Know you of anything bolder than this?

Fifth, He calls upon men to sacrifice their tenderest affections for Him. He is to be chosen before even father and mother (Matt. 10:34-39).

e) As Revealed in the Sermon on the Mount.

Matt. 5-7; Luke 6:20-49. Two references will be sufficient here. Who is this that dares to set Himself up as superior to Moses and the law of Moses, by saying, "But I say unto you"? Then, again, listen to Christ as He proclaims Himself to be the judge of all men at the last day (Matt. 7:21). Could Jesus say all this without having any consciousness of His unique relationship to all these things? Assuredly not.

B. THE WORK OF JESUS CHRIST.
The Death of Jesus Christ.

I. ITS IMPORTANCE.
1. IT HAS A SUPREME PLACE IN THE CHRISTIAN RELIGION.
Christianity is a religion of atonement distinctively. The elimination of the doctrine of the death of Christ from the religion that bears His name would mean the surrender of its uniqueness and claim to be the only true religion, the supreme and final revelation from God to the sons of men. It is its redemption feature that distinguishes Christianity from any and all other religions. If you surrender this distinctive Christian doctrine from its creed, then this supreme religion is brought down to the level of many other prevailing religious systems. Christianity is not merely a system of ethics; it is the history of redemption through Jesus Christ, the personal Redeemer.

2. ITS VITAL RELATION TO JESUS CHRIST.
The atonement is so closely related to Jesus Christ, so allied to His work, as set forth in the Scriptures, that it is absolutely inseparable from it. Christ was not primarily a religious teacher, a philanthropist, an ethical example; He was all these, yea, and much more—He was first and foremost the world's Saviour and Redeemer. Other great men have been valued for their lives; He, above all, for His death, around which God and man are reconciled. The Cross is the magnet which sends the electric current through the telegraph between earth and heaven, and makes both Testaments thrill, through the ages of the past and future, with living, harmonious, and saving truth. Other men have said: "If I could only live, I would establish and perpetuate an empire." The Christ of Galilee said: "My death shall do it." Let us understand that the power of Christianity lies, not in hazy indefiniteness, not in shadowy forms, not so much even in definite truths and doctrines, but in the truth, and in the doctrine of Christ crucified and risen from the dead. Unless Christianity be more tnan ethical, it is not, nor can it really be ethical at all. It is redemptive, dynamic through that redemption, and ethical withal.

3. ITS RELATION TO THE INCARNATION.
It is not putting the matter too strongly when we say that the incarnation was for the purpose of the atonement. At least this seems to be the testimony of the Scriptures. Jesus Christ partook of flesh and blood in order that He might die (Heb. 2:14). "He was manifested to take away our sins" (1 John 3:5). Christ came into this world to give His life a ransom for many (Matt. 20:28). The very purpose of the entire coming of Christ into the word, in all its varying aspects, was that, by assuming a nature like unto our own, He might offer up His life as a sacrifice for the sins of men. The faith of the atonement presupposes the faith of the incarnation. So close have been the relation of these two fundamental doctrines that their relation is one of the great questions which have divided men in their opinions in the matter: which is primary and which secondary; which is to be regarded as the most necessary to man's salvation, as the primary and the highest fact in the history of God's dealings with man. The atonement naturally arises out of the incarnation so that the Son of God could not appear in our nature without undertaking such a work as the word atonement denotes. The incarnation is a pledge and anticipation of the work of atonement. The incarnation is most certainly the declaration of a purpose on the part of God to save the world. But how was the world to be saved if not through the atonement?

4. ITS PROMINENCE IN THE SCRIPTURES.
It was the claim of Jesus, in His conversation with the two disciples on the way to Emmaus, that Moses, and all the prophets, indeed, all the Scriptures, dealt with the subject of His death (Luke 24:27, 44). That the death of Christ was the one great subject into which the Old Testament prophets searched deeply is clear from 1 Pet. 1:11, 12. The atonement is the scarlet cord running through every page in the entire Bible. Cut the Bible anywhere, and it bleeds; it is red with redemption truth. It is said that one out of every forty-four verses in the New Testament deals with this theme, and that the death of Christ is mentioned in all one hundred and seventy-five times. When you add to these figures the typical and symbolical teaching of the Old Testament some idea is gained as to the important place which this doctrine occupies in the sacred Scriptures.

5. THE FUNDAMENTAL THEME OF THE GOSPEL.
Paul says: "I delivered unto you first of all (i.e., first in order; the first plank in the Gospel platform; the truth of primary importance) . . . that Christ died for our sins" (1 Cor. 15:1-3). There can be no Gospel story, message or preaching without the story of the death of Christ as the Redeemer of men.

6. THE ONE GRAND THEME IN HEAVEN.
Moses and Elias, the heavenly visitors to this earth, conversed about it (Luke 9:30, 31), even though Peter was ashamed of the same truth (Matt. 16:21-25). The theme of the song of the redeemed in heaven is that of Christ's death (Rev. 5:8-12).

II. THE SCRIPTURAL DEFINITION OF THE DEATH OF CHRIST.
The Scriptures set forth the death of Jesus Christ in a four-fold way:

1. AS A RANSOM. Matt. 20:28; 1 Pet. l;18; 1 Tim. 2:6; Gal. 3:13.

The meaning of a ransom is clearly set forth in Lev. 25:47-49: To deliver a thing or person by paying a price; to buy back a person or thing by paying the price for which it is held in captivity. So sin is like a slave market in which sinners are "sold under sin" (Rom. 7:14); souls are under sentence of death (Ezek. 18:4). Christ, by His death, buys sinners out of the market, thereby indicating complete deliverance from the service of sin. He looses the bonds, sets the prisoners free, by paying a price—that price being His own precious blood.

To whom this ransom is paid is a debatable question: whether to Satan for his captives, or to eternal and necessary holiness, to the divine law, to the claims of God who is by His nature the holy Lawgiver. The latter, referring to God and His holiness, is probably preferable.

Christ redeemed us from the curse of a broken law by Himself being made a curse for us. His death was the ransom price paid for our deliverance.

2. A PROPITIATION. Rom. 3:25; 1 John 2:2; Heb. 2:17 (R. V.).

Christ is the propitiation for our sins; He is set forth by God to be a propitiation through His blood.

Propitiation means mercy-seat, or covering. The mercy-seat covering the ark of the covenant was called propitiation (Exod. 25:22; Heb. 9:5.) It is that by which God covers, overlooks, and pardons the penitent and believing sinner because of Christ's death. Propitiation furnishes a ground on the basis of which God could set forth His righteousness, and yet pardon sinful men, Rom. 3:25, 26; Heb. 9:15. Christ Himself is the propitiatory sacrifice, 1 John 2:2. The death of Jesus Christ is set forth as the ground on which a righteous God can pardon a guilty and sinful race without in any way compromising His righteousness.

3. AS A RECONCILIATION. Rom. 5:10; 2 Cor. 5:18, 19; Eph. 2:16; Col. 1:20.

We are reconciled to God by the death of His Son, by His Cross, and by the blood of His Cross—that is the message of these scriptures.

Reconciliation has two sides; active and passive. In the active sense we may look upon Christ's death as removing the enmity existing between God and man, and which had hitherto been a barrier to fellowship (see the above quoted texts). This state of existing enmity is set forth in such scriptures as Rom. 8:7—"Because the carnal mind is enmity against God." Also Eph. 2:15; Jas. 4:4. In the passive sense of the word it may indicate the change of attitude on the part of man toward God, this change being wrought in the heart of man by a vision of the Cross of Christ; a change from enmity to friendship thus taking place, cf. 2 Cor. 5:20. It is probably better to state the case thus: God is propitiated, and the sinner is reconciled (2 Cor. 5:18-20).

4. AS A SUBSTITUTION. Isa. 53:6; 1 Pet. 2:24, 3:18; 2 Cor. 5:21.

The story of the passover lamb (Exod. 12), with 1 Cor. 5:7, illustrates the meaning of substitution as here used: one life given in the stead of another. "The Lord hath laid on him the iniquity of us all." God made Christ, who knew no sin, to be sin for us. Christ Himself bore our sins in His own body on the tree—this is substitution. Christ died in our place, bore our sins, paid the penalty due our sins; and all this, not by force, but willingly (John 10:17, 18). The idea of substitution is well illustrated by the nature of the preposition used in connection with this phase of Christ's death: In Matt. 80-28 Christ is said to give His life a ransom for all (also 1 Tim. 2:6). That this preposition means instead of is clear from its use in Matt. 2:22—"Archelaus did reign in the room (or in the stead) of his father, Herod." Also in Luke 11:11—"Will he for a fish give him a serpent?" (See Heb. 12:2, 16.) Substitution, then, as used here means this: That something happened to Christ, and because it happened to Christ, it need not happen to us. Christ died for our sins; we need not die for them if we accept His sacrifice. For further illustrations, see Gen. 22:13; God providing a ram instead of Isaac; also Barabbas freed and Christ bearing his cross and taking his place.

Upon a life I did not live;
Upon a death I did not die;
Upon another's death, another's life,
I risk my soul eternally.
 
  • Like
Reactions: 1 person
#3,407
#3,407
BigO95 said:
. THE DEITY OF JESUS CHEIST.
1. DIVINE NAMES ARE GIVEN TO HIM.
a) He is Called God.

John 1:1—"The Word was God." Heb. 1:8—"But unto the Son he saith, Thy throne, O God, is for ever." John 1:18—"The only begotten Son (or better "only begotten God")." Absolute deity is here ascribed to Christ. 20:28-"My Lord and my God." Not an expression of amazement, but a confession of faith. This confession accepted by Christ, hence equivalent to the acceptance of deity, and an assertion of it on Christ's part. Rom. 9:5—"God blessed forever." Tit. 2:13—"The great God and our Saviour Jesus Christ." 1 John,5:20—"His Son Jesus Christ. This is the true God." In all these passages Christ is called God.

It may be argued that while Christ is here called God, yet that does not argue for nor prove His deity, for human judges are also called "gods" in John 10:35—"If he called them gods unto whom the word of God came." True, but it is then used in a secondary and relative sense, and not in the absolute sense as when used of the Son.

b) He is Called the Son of God.

The references containing this title are numerous. Among others see Matt. 16:16, 17; 8:29; 14:33; Mark 1:1; 14:61; Luke 1:35; 4:41. While it may be true that in the synoptic Gospels Jesus may not be said to have claimed this title for Himself, yet He unhesitatingly accepted it when used of Him and addressed to Him by others. Further, it seems clear from the charges made against Him that He did claim such an honor for Himself. Matt. 27:40, 43—"For he said, I am the Son of God." Mark 14:61, 62 —"Art thou the Christ, the Son of the Blessed" (Luke 22:70—"Art thou then the Son of God? And Jesus said, I am." In John's Gospel, however, Jesus plainly calls Himself "the Son of God" (5:25; 10:36 11:4). Indeed, John's Gospel begins with Christ as God: "The Word was God," and ends with the same thought: "My Lord and my God" (20:28). (Chapter 21 is an epilogue.)

Dr. James Orr says, in speaking of the title Son of God as ascribed to Christ: "This title is one to which there can be no finite comparison or analogy. The oneness with God which it designates is not such reflex influence of the divine thought and character such as man and angels may attain, but identity of essence constituting him not God-like alone, but God. Others may be children of God in a moral sense; but by this right of elemental nature, none but He; He is herein, the only Son; so little separate, so close to the inner divine life which He expresses, that He is in the bosom of the Father. This language denotes two natures homogeneous, entirely one, and both so essential to the Godhead that neither can be omitted from any truth you speak of it."

If when He called Himself "the Son of God" He did not mean more than that He was a son of God, why then did the high priest accuse Him of blasphemy when He claimed this title (Matt. 26: 61-63)? Does not Mark 12:6—"Having yet therefore one son, his well-beloved, he sent him also last unto them, saying, They will reverence my son," indicate a special sonship? The sonship of Christ is human and historical, it is true; but it is more: it is transcendent, unique, solitary. That something unique and solitary lay in this title seems clear from John 5:18—"The Jews sought the more to kill Him….because he….said….also that God was His Father, making Himself equal with God."

The use of the word "only begotten" also indicates the uniqueness of this sonship. For use of the word see Luke 7:12—"The only son of his mother." 9:38—"For he is mine only child." This word is used of Christ by John in 1:14, 18; 3:16, 18; 1 John 4:9, and distinguishes between Christ as the only Son, and the "many….children of God" (John 1:12, 13). In one sense Christ has no brethren: He stands absolutely alone. This contrast is clearly emphasized in John 1:14, 18—"only begotten Son," and 1:12 (R. V.)—"many….children." He is the Son from eternity: they "become" sons in time. He is one; they are many. He is Son by nature; they are sons by adoption and grace. He is Son of the same essence with the Father; they are of different substance from the Father.

c) He is Called The Lord.

Acte 4:33; 16:31; Luke 2:11; Acts 9:17; Matt. 22:43-45. It is true that this term is used of men, e.g., Acts 16:30—"Sirs (Lords), what must I do to be saved?" John 12:21—"Sir (Lord), we would see Jesus." It is not used, however, in this unique sense, as the connection will clearly show. In our Lord's day, the title "Lord" as used of Christ was applicable only to the Deity, to God. "The Ptolemies and the Roman Emperors would allow the name to be applied to them only when they permitted themselves to be deified. The archaeological discoveries at Oxyrhyncus put this fact beyond a doubt. So when the New Testament writers speak of Jesus as Lord, there can be no question as to what they mean." —Wood.

d) Other Divine Names are Ascribed to Him:

"The first and the last" (Rev. 1:17). This title used of Jehovah in Isa. 41:4; 44:6; 48:12. "The Alpha and Omega" (Rev. 22:13, 16); cf. 1:8 where it is used of God.

2. DIVINE WORSHIP IS ASCRIBED TO JESUS CHRIST.
The Scriptures recognize worship as being due to God, to Deity alone: Matt. 4:10—"Worship the Lord thy God, and him only." Rev. 22:8, 9—"I fell down to worship before the feet of the angel…Then saith he unto me, See thou do it not:…. worship God." John was not allowed even to worship God at the feet of the angel. Acts 14:14, 15; 10:25, 26—Cornelius fell down at the feet of Peter, and worshipped him. "But Peter took him up, saying, Stand up; I myself also am a man." See what an awful fate was meted out to Herod because he dared to accept worship that belonged to God only (Acts 12:20-25). Yet Jesus Christ unhesitatingly accepted such worsnip, indeed, called for it (John 4:10). See John 20:28; Matt. 14:33; Luke 24:52; 5:8.

The homage given to Christ in these scriptures would be nothing short of sacrilegious idolatry if Christ were not God. There seemed to be not the slightest reluctance on the part of Christ in the acceptance of such worship. Therefore either Christ was God or He was an imposter. But His whole life refutes the idea of imposture. It was He who said, "Worship God only"; and He had no right to take the place of God if He were not God.

God himself commands all men to render worship to the Son, even as they do to Him. John 5:23, 24—"That all men should honor the Son, even as they honor the Father." Even the angels are commanded to render worship to the Son. Heb. 1:6—"And let all the angels of God worship him." Phil. 2:10—"That at the name of Jesus every knee should bow."

It was the practice of the apostles and the early church to render worship to Christ: 2 Cor. 12:8-10—"I besought the Lord." Acts 7:59—"And they stoned Stephen, calling upon God, and saying, Lord Jesus, receive my spirit." 1 Cor. 1:2—"Them that…call upon the name of Jesus Christ our Lord."

The Christians of all ages have not been satisfied with admiring
Christ, they have adored and worshipped Him. They have approached
His person in the attitude of self-sacrifice and worship as in the
presence of and to a God.
Robert Browning quoted, in a letter to a lady in her last illness, the words of Charles Lamb, when in a gay fancy with some friends as to how he and they would feel if the greatest of the dead were to appear suddenly in flesh and blood once more—on the first suggestion, and "if Christ entered this room?" changed his tone at once, and stuttered out as his manner was when moved: "You see —if Shakespeare entered, we should all rise; if Christ appeared, we must kneel."

3. HE POSSESSES THE QUALITIES AND PROPERTIES OF DEITY.
a) Pre-Existence.

John 1:1—"In the beginning"; cf. Gen 1:1 John 8:58—"Before Abraham was, I am." That is to say: "Abraham's existence presupposes mine, not mine his. He was dependent upon me, not I upon him for existence. Abraham came into being at a certain point of time, but I am." Here is simple being without beginning or end. See also John 17:5; Phil. 2:6; Col. 1:16, 17.

b) Self-Existence and Life-Giving Power:

John 5:21, 26—"For as the Father raiseth up the dead and quickeneth them, even so the Son quickeneth whom he will." "For as the Father hath life in himself, so hath he given to the Son to have life in himself." 1:4—"In him was life." See also 14:6; Heb. 7:16; John 17:3-5; 10:17, 18. These scriptures teach that all life—physical, moral, spiritual, eternal—has its source in Christ.

c) Immutability:

Heb. 13:8—"Jesus Christ the same yesterday, and today, and for ever." See also 1:12. All nature, which like a garment He throws around Him is subject to change and decay; Jesus Christ is the same always, He never changes. Human teachers, such as are spoken of in the context, may change, but He, the Christ, never.

d) All the Fulness of the Godhead Dwelt in Him:

Col. 2:9—Not merely the divine perfections and attributes of Deity, but (theotes) the very essence and nature of the Godhead. He was not merely God-like; He was God.

4. DIVINE OFFICES ABE ASCRIBED TO HIM.
a) He is the Creator:

John 1:3—"All things were made by Him." In the creation He was the acting power and personal instrument. Creation is the revelation of His mind and might. Heb. 1:10 shows the dignity of the Creator as contrasted with the creature. Col. 1:16 contradicts the Gnostic theory of emanations, and shows Christ to be the creator of all created things and beings. Rev. 3:14—"The beginning of the creation of God," means "beginning" in the active sense, the origin, that by which a thing begins to be. Col. 1:15—"first-born," not made; compare with Col. 1:17, where the "for" of v. 16 shows Him to be not included in the "created things," but the origin of and superior to them all. He is the Creator of the universe (v. 16), just as He is the Head of the church (v. 18).

b) He is the Upholder of All Things:

Col. 1:17; Heb. 1:3. The universe is neither self-sustaining nor is it forsaken by God (Deism). Christ's power causes all things to hold together. The pulses of universal life are regulated and controlled by the throbbings of the mighty heart of Christ.

c) He Has the Right to Forgive Sins.

Mark 2:5-10. Luke 7:48—"And he said unto her, Thy sins are forgiven." Certain it is that the Pharisees recognized that Christ was here assuming a divine prerogative. No mere man had any right to forgive sins. God alone could do that. Hence the Pharisees' charge of blasphemy. This is no declaration of forgiveness, based upon the knowledge of the man's penitence. Christ does not merely declare sins forgiven. He actually forgives them. Further, Jesus, in the parable of the Two Debtors (Luke 7), declares that sins were committed against Himself (cf. Psa. 51:4—"Against thee, thee only, have I sinned").

d) The Raising of the Bodies of Men is Ascribed to Him:

John 6:39, 40, 54; 11:25. Five times it is here declared by Jesus that it is His prerogative to raise the dead. It is true that others raised the dead, but under what different conditions? They worked by a delegated power (Acts 9:34); but Christ, by His own power (John 10:17, 18). Note the agony of Elisha and others, as compared with the calmness of Christ. None of these claimed to raise the dead by his own power, nor to have any such power in the general resurrection of all men. Christ did make such claims.

e) He is to be the Judge of All Men;

John 5:22—"For the Father judgeth no man, but hath committed all judgment unto the Son." 2 Tim. 4:1; Acts 17:31; Matt. 25:31-46. The Man of the Cross is to be the Man of the throne. The issues of the judgment are all in His hand.

5. DIVINE ATTRIBUTES ARE POSSESSED BY HIM.
a) Omnipotence.

Matt 28:18—"All power is given unto me in heaven and in earth." Rev. 1:8; John 17:2; Eph. I:20-22. Here is power over three realms: First, all power on earth: over disease (Luke 4:38-41); death (John 11); nature, water into wine (John 2); tempest (Matt. 8). Second, all power in hell: over demons (Luke 4:35, 36, 41); evil angels (Eph. 6). Third, all power in heaven: (Eph. 1:20-22). Finally, power over all things: (Heb. 2:8; 1:3; Matt. 28:18).

b) Omniscience.

John 16:30—"Now are we sure that thou knowest all things." 2:24; Matt. 24; 25; Col. 2:3. Illustrations: John 4:16-19; Mark 2:8; John 1:48. "Our Lord always leaves the impression that He knew all things in detail, both past and future, and that this knowledge comes from His original perception of the events. He does not learn them by acquisition. He simply knows them by immediate perception. Such utterances as Matt. 24 and Luke 21 carry in them a subtle difference from the utterances of the prophets. The latter spoke as men who were quite remote in point of time from their declaration of unfolding events. Jesus spoke as one who is present in the midst of the events which He depicts. He does not refer to events in the past as if He were quoting from the historic narrative in the Old Testament. The only instance which casts doubt upon this view is Mark 13:32. The parallel passage in Matthew omits, in many ancient versions, the words; "Neither the Son." The saying in Mark is capable of an interpretation which does not contradict this view of His omniscience. This is an omniscience nevertheless, which in its manifestation to men is under something of human limitation."—Wood.

This limitation of knowledge is no argument against the infallibility of those things which Jesus did teach: for example, the Mosaic authorship of the Pentateuch. That argument, says Liddon, involves a confusion between limitation of knowledge and liability to error; whereas, plainly enough, a limitation of knowledge is one thing, and fallibility is another. St. Paul says, "We know in part," and "We see through a glass darkly." Yet Paul is so certain of the truth of that which he teaches, as to exclaim, "But though we, or an angel from heaven, preach any other gospel unto you than that which we have preached unto you, let him be accursed." Paul clearly believed in his own infallibility as a teacher of religious truth, and the church of Christ has ever since regarded his epistles as part of an infallible literature. But it is equally clear that Paul believed his knowledge of truth to be limited. Infallibility does not imply omniscience, any more than limited knowledge implies error. If a human teacher were to decline to speak upon a given subject, by saying that he did not know enough about it, this would not be a reason for disbelieving him when he proceeded to speak confidently upon a totally different subject, thereby at least implying that he did not know enough to warrant his speaking. On the contrary, his silence in the one case would be a reason for trusting his statements in the other. The argument which is under consideration in the text would have been really sound, if our Saviour had fixed the date of the day of judgment and the event had shown him to be mistaken. Why stumble over the limitation of this attribute and not over the others? Did He not hunger and thirst, for example? As God He is omnipresent, yet as man He is present only in one place. As God He is omnipotent; yet, on one occasion at least, He could do no mighty works because of the unbelief of men.

c) Omnipresence.

Matt. 18:20—"For where two or three are gathered together in my name, there am I in the midst of them." He is with every missionary (Matt. 28:20). He is prayed to by Christians in every place (1 Cor. 1:2). Prayer would be a mockery if we were not assured that Christ is everywhere present to hear. He fills all things, every place (Eph. 1:23). But such an all pervading presence is true only of Deity.

6. HIS NAME IS COUPLED WITH THAT OF GOD THE FATHER.
The manner in which the name of Jesus Christ is coupled with that of God the Father clearly implies equality of the Son with the Father. Compare the following:

a) The Apostolic Benediction.

2 Cor. 13:14. Here the Son equally with the Father is the bestower of grace.

b) The Baptismal Formula.

Matt. 28:19; Acts 2:38. "In the name," not the names (plural).
How would it sound to say, "In the name of the Father" and of
Moses? Would it not seem sacrilegious? Can we imagine the effect
of such words on the apostles?
c) Other Passages.

John 14:23—"We will come: the Father and I." 17:3—"And this is life eternal that they might know thee, the only true God, and Jesus Christ." The content of saving faith includes belief in Jesus Christ equally with the Father. 10:30—"I and my Father are one." "One" is neuter, not masculine, meaning that Jesus and the Father constitute one power by which the salvation of man is secured. 2 Thess. 2:16, 17—"Now our Lord Jesus Christ himself, and God, even our Father…comfort your hearts." These two names, with a verb in the singular, intimate the oneness of the Father with the Son.

7. THE SELF-CONSCIOUSNESS OF JESUS REGARDING HIS OWN PERSON AND WORK.
It will be interesting to search the Gospel records to ascertain what was in the mind of Jesus concerning Himself—His relation to the Father in particular. What bearing has the testimony of Jesus upon the question of His deity? Is the present Christian consciousness borne out by the Gospel narratives? Is Jesus Christ a man of a much higher type of faith than ours, yet one with whom we believe in God? Or is He, equally with God, the object of our faith? Do we believe with Him, or on Him? Is there any indication in the words ascribed to Jesus, as recorded in the Gospels, of a consciousness on His part of His unique relation to God the Father? Is it Jesus Himself who is responsible for the Christian's consciousness concerning His deity, or is the Church reading into the Gospel accounts something that is not really there? Let us see.

a) As Set Forth in the Narrative of His Visit to the Temple.

Luke 2:41-52. This is a single flower out of the wonderfully enclosed garden of the first thirty years of our Lord's life. The emphatic words, for our purpose, are "thy father," and "my Father." These are the first recorded words of Jesus. Is there not here an indication of the consciousness on the part of Jesus of a unique relationship with His heavenly Father? Mary, not Joseph, asked the question, so contrary to Jewish custom. She said: "Thy father"; Jesus replied in substance: "Did you say my father has been seeking me?" It is remarkable to note that Christ omits the word "father" when referring to His parents, cf. Matt. 12:48; Mark 3:33, 34. "My Father!" No other human lips had ever uttered these words. Men said, and He taught them to say, "Our Father." It is not too much to say that in this incident Christ sees, rising before Him, the great truth that God, and not Joseph, is His Father, and that it is in His true Father's house that He now stands.

b) As Revealed at His Baptism:

Matt. 3:13-17; Mark 1:9-ll; Luke 3:21. Here are some things to remember in connection with Christ's baptism: First, Jesus was well acquainted with the relation of John and his ministry to the Old Testament prophecy, as well as of John's own announcement that he was the Messiah's fore-runner, and that he (John) was not worthy to untie the latchet of Christ's shoes. Second, to come then to John, and to submit to baptism at his hands, would indicate that Jesus conceded the truth of all that John had said. This is emphasized when we remember Jesus' eulogy of John (Matt. 11). Thirdly, There is the descent of the Spirit, and the heavenly voice; what meaning did these things have to Jesus? If Christ's sermon in the synagogue at Nazareth is of any help here, we must believe that at His baptism, so much more than at the age of twelve, He was conscious that in thus being anointed He was associating Himself in some peculiar way with the prophecy of Isaiah, chapters 42 and 61: "Behold my Servant… I have put my Spirit upon Him." All, therefore, that must have been wrapped up in the thought of the "Servant of the Lord" in the Old Testament would assuredly be quickened in his consciousness that day when the Spirit descended upon Him. See also Luke 4:16-17; Acts 10: 38; Matt. 12:28.

But what did the heavenly voice signify to Christ? "This is my beloved Son" takes us back to the second Psalm where this person is addressed as the ideal King of Israel. The last clause—"in whom I am well pleased"—refers to Isaiah 42, and portrays the servant who is anointed and empowered by the endowment of God's Spirit. We must admit that the mind of Jesus was steeped in the prophecies of the Old Testament, and that He knew to whom these passages referred. The ordinary Jew knew that much. Is it too much to say that on that baptismal day Jesus was keenly conscious that these Old Testament predictions were fulfilled in Him? We think not.

c) As Set Forth in the Record of the Temptation.

Matt. 4:1-11; Mark 1:12, 13; Luke 4:1-13. That Jesus entered into the temptation in the wilderness with the consciousness of the revelation He received, and of which He was conscious at the baptism, seems clear from the narratives. Certain it is that Satan based his temptations upon Christ's consciousness of His unique relation to God as His Son. Throughout the whole of the temptation Satan regards Christ as being in a unique sense the Son of God, the ideal King, through whom the kingdom of God is to be established upon the earth. Indeed, so clearly is the kingship of Jesus recognized in the temptation narrative that the whole question agitated there is as to how that kingdom may be established in the world. It must be admitted that a careful reading of the narratives forces us to the conclusion that throughout all the temptation Christ was conscious of His position with reference to the founding of God's kingdom in the world.

d) As Set Forth in the Calling of the Twelve and the Seventy.

The record of this event is found in Matt. 10; Mark 3:13-19; 6:7-13; Luke 9:1-6; 10:1-14. This important event in the life of our Lord had an important bearing upon His self-consciousness as to His person and work. Let us note some of the details:

First, as to the number, twelve. Is there no suggestion here with reference to the New Jerusalem when the Messiah shall sit upon the throne surrounded by the twelve apostles seated on their thrones? Is not Jesus here conscious of Himself as being the centre of the scene thus described in the Apocalypse?

Second, He gave them power. Is not Jesus here repeating what had been done for Him at His baptism: conveying super-human power? Who can give this power that is strong enough to make even demons obey? No one less than God surely.

Third, note that the message which He committed to the twelve concerned matters of life and death. Not to receive that message would be equivalent to the rejection of the Father.

Fourth, all this is to be done in His name, and for His name's sake. Fidelity to Jesus is that on which the final destiny of men depends. Everything rises or falls in its relation to Him. Could such words be uttered and there be no consciousness on the part of the speaker of a unique relationship to the Father and the things of eternity? Know you of anything bolder than this?

Fifth, He calls upon men to sacrifice their tenderest affections for Him. He is to be chosen before even father and mother (Matt. 10:34-39).

e) As Revealed in the Sermon on the Mount.

Matt. 5-7; Luke 6:20-49. Two references will be sufficient here. Who is this that dares to set Himself up as superior to Moses and the law of Moses, by saying, "But I say unto you"? Then, again, listen to Christ as He proclaims Himself to be the judge of all men at the last day (Matt. 7:21). Could Jesus say all this without having any consciousness of His unique relationship to all these things? Assuredly not.

B. THE WORK OF JESUS CHRIST.
The Death of Jesus Christ.

I. ITS IMPORTANCE.
1. IT HAS A SUPREME PLACE IN THE CHRISTIAN RELIGION.
Christianity is a religion of atonement distinctively. The elimination of the doctrine of the death of Christ from the religion that bears His name would mean the surrender of its uniqueness and claim to be the only true religion, the supreme and final revelation from God to the sons of men. It is its redemption feature that distinguishes Christianity from any and all other religions. If you surrender this distinctive Christian doctrine from its creed, then this supreme religion is brought down to the level of many other prevailing religious systems. Christianity is not merely a system of ethics; it is the history of redemption through Jesus Christ, the personal Redeemer.

2. ITS VITAL RELATION TO JESUS CHRIST.
The atonement is so closely related to Jesus Christ, so allied to His work, as set forth in the Scriptures, that it is absolutely inseparable from it. Christ was not primarily a religious teacher, a philanthropist, an ethical example; He was all these, yea, and much more—He was first and foremost the world's Saviour and Redeemer. Other great men have been valued for their lives; He, above all, for His death, around which God and man are reconciled. The Cross is the magnet which sends the electric current through the telegraph between earth and heaven, and makes both Testaments thrill, through the ages of the past and future, with living, harmonious, and saving truth. Other men have said: "If I could only live, I would establish and perpetuate an empire." The Christ of Galilee said: "My death shall do it." Let us understand that the power of Christianity lies, not in hazy indefiniteness, not in shadowy forms, not so much even in definite truths and doctrines, but in the truth, and in the doctrine of Christ crucified and risen from the dead. Unless Christianity be more tnan ethical, it is not, nor can it really be ethical at all. It is redemptive, dynamic through that redemption, and ethical withal.

3. ITS RELATION TO THE INCARNATION.
It is not putting the matter too strongly when we say that the incarnation was for the purpose of the atonement. At least this seems to be the testimony of the Scriptures. Jesus Christ partook of flesh and blood in order that He might die (Heb. 2:14). "He was manifested to take away our sins" (1 John 3:5). Christ came into this world to give His life a ransom for many (Matt. 20:28). The very purpose of the entire coming of Christ into the word, in all its varying aspects, was that, by assuming a nature like unto our own, He might offer up His life as a sacrifice for the sins of men. The faith of the atonement presupposes the faith of the incarnation. So close have been the relation of these two fundamental doctrines that their relation is one of the great questions which have divided men in their opinions in the matter: which is primary and which secondary; which is to be regarded as the most necessary to man's salvation, as the primary and the highest fact in the history of God's dealings with man. The atonement naturally arises out of the incarnation so that the Son of God could not appear in our nature without undertaking such a work as the word atonement denotes. The incarnation is a pledge and anticipation of the work of atonement. The incarnation is most certainly the declaration of a purpose on the part of God to save the world. But how was the world to be saved if not through the atonement?

4. ITS PROMINENCE IN THE SCRIPTURES.
It was the claim of Jesus, in His conversation with the two disciples on the way to Emmaus, that Moses, and all the prophets, indeed, all the Scriptures, dealt with the subject of His death (Luke 24:27, 44). That the death of Christ was the one great subject into which the Old Testament prophets searched deeply is clear from 1 Pet. 1:11, 12. The atonement is the scarlet cord running through every page in the entire Bible. Cut the Bible anywhere, and it bleeds; it is red with redemption truth. It is said that one out of every forty-four verses in the New Testament deals with this theme, and that the death of Christ is mentioned in all one hundred and seventy-five times. When you add to these figures the typical and symbolical teaching of the Old Testament some idea is gained as to the important place which this doctrine occupies in the sacred Scriptures.

5. THE FUNDAMENTAL THEME OF THE GOSPEL.
Paul says: "I delivered unto you first of all (i.e., first in order; the first plank in the Gospel platform; the truth of primary importance) . . . that Christ died for our sins" (1 Cor. 15:1-3). There can be no Gospel story, message or preaching without the story of the death of Christ as the Redeemer of men.

6. THE ONE GRAND THEME IN HEAVEN.
Moses and Elias, the heavenly visitors to this earth, conversed about it (Luke 9:30, 31), even though Peter was ashamed of the same truth (Matt. 16:21-25). The theme of the song of the redeemed in heaven is that of Christ's death (Rev. 5:8-12).

II. THE SCRIPTURAL DEFINITION OF THE DEATH OF CHRIST.
The Scriptures set forth the death of Jesus Christ in a four-fold way:

1. AS A RANSOM. Matt. 20:28; 1 Pet. l;18; 1 Tim. 2:6; Gal. 3:13.

The meaning of a ransom is clearly set forth in Lev. 25:47-49: To deliver a thing or person by paying a price; to buy back a person or thing by paying the price for which it is held in captivity. So sin is like a slave market in which sinners are "sold under sin" (Rom. 7:14); souls are under sentence of death (Ezek. 18:4). Christ, by His death, buys sinners out of the market, thereby indicating complete deliverance from the service of sin. He looses the bonds, sets the prisoners free, by paying a price—that price being His own precious blood.

To whom this ransom is paid is a debatable question: whether to Satan for his captives, or to eternal and necessary holiness, to the divine law, to the claims of God who is by His nature the holy Lawgiver. The latter, referring to God and His holiness, is probably preferable.

Christ redeemed us from the curse of a broken law by Himself being made a curse for us. His death was the ransom price paid for our deliverance.

2. A PROPITIATION. Rom. 3:25; 1 John 2:2; Heb. 2:17 (R. V.).

Christ is the propitiation for our sins; He is set forth by God to be a propitiation through His blood.

Propitiation means mercy-seat, or covering. The mercy-seat covering the ark of the covenant was called propitiation (Exod. 25:22; Heb. 9:5.) It is that by which God covers, overlooks, and pardons the penitent and believing sinner because of Christ's death. Propitiation furnishes a ground on the basis of which God could set forth His righteousness, and yet pardon sinful men, Rom. 3:25, 26; Heb. 9:15. Christ Himself is the propitiatory sacrifice, 1 John 2:2. The death of Jesus Christ is set forth as the ground on which a righteous God can pardon a guilty and sinful race without in any way compromising His righteousness.

3. AS A RECONCILIATION. Rom. 5:10; 2 Cor. 5:18, 19; Eph. 2:16; Col. 1:20.

We are reconciled to God by the death of His Son, by His Cross, and by the blood of His Cross—that is the message of these scriptures.

Reconciliation has two sides; active and passive. In the active sense we may look upon Christ's death as removing the enmity existing between God and man, and which had hitherto been a barrier to fellowship (see the above quoted texts). This state of existing enmity is set forth in such scriptures as Rom. 8:7—"Because the carnal mind is enmity against God." Also Eph. 2:15; Jas. 4:4. In the passive sense of the word it may indicate the change of attitude on the part of man toward God, this change being wrought in the heart of man by a vision of the Cross of Christ; a change from enmity to friendship thus taking place, cf. 2 Cor. 5:20. It is probably better to state the case thus: God is propitiated, and the sinner is reconciled (2 Cor. 5:18-20).

4. AS A SUBSTITUTION. Isa. 53:6; 1 Pet. 2:24, 3:18; 2 Cor. 5:21.

The story of the passover lamb (Exod. 12), with 1 Cor. 5:7, illustrates the meaning of substitution as here used: one life given in the stead of another. "The Lord hath laid on him the iniquity of us all." God made Christ, who knew no sin, to be sin for us. Christ Himself bore our sins in His own body on the tree—this is substitution. Christ died in our place, bore our sins, paid the penalty due our sins; and all this, not by force, but willingly (John 10:17, 18). The idea of substitution is well illustrated by the nature of the preposition used in connection with this phase of Christ's death: In Matt. 80-28 Christ is said to give His life a ransom for all (also 1 Tim. 2:6). That this preposition means instead of is clear from its use in Matt. 2:22—"Archelaus did reign in the room (or in the stead) of his father, Herod." Also in Luke 11:11—"Will he for a fish give him a serpent?" (See Heb. 12:2, 16.) Substitution, then, as used here means this: That something happened to Christ, and because it happened to Christ, it need not happen to us. Christ died for our sins; we need not die for them if we accept His sacrifice. For further illustrations, see Gen. 22:13; God providing a ram instead of Isaac; also Barabbas freed and Christ bearing his cross and taking his place.

Upon a life I did not live;
Upon a death I did not die;
Upon another's death, another's life,
I risk my soul eternally.
Click to expand...

Congrats on the copy and paste masterpiece..
 
#3,412
#3,412
LouderVol said:
to be fair, it was only the parts that agrees with him.
Click to expand...

To be fair everyone does that to an extent.
In my mind all scripture should agree or it’s not of G-d. With that bias in mind if a word can fairly be translated either End or Goal and Goal better fits with the rest of scripture then that’s how I interpret it.
Those two words seem contradictory but aren’t really.

For example to what end (Goal) are we having this conversation.
 
#3,413
#3,413
Orangeslice13 said:
To be fair everyone does that to an extent.
In my mind all scripture should agree or it’s not of G-d. With that bias in mind if a word can fairly be translated either End or Goal and Goal better fits with the rest of scripture then that’s how I interpret it.
Those two words seem contradictory but aren’t really.

For example to what end (Goal) are we having this conversation.
Click to expand...
With regard to your first statement: Yes. Virtually everyone does that.

Your question at the end: I thought we were supposed to give our thoughts on were life began.
 
#3,419
#3,419
BigO95 said:
It was the practice of the apostles and the early church to render worship to Christ: 2 Cor. 12:8-10—"I besought the Lord." Acts 7:59—"And they stoned Stephen, calling upon God, and saying, Lord Jesus, receive my spirit." 1 Cor. 1:2—"Them that…call upon the name of Jesus Christ our Lord."
Click to expand...

Luke 2:20 -- "And the shepherds went back, glorifying and praising God for all that they had heard and seen, just as had been told them (by the angel of Luke 2:8-15).

As Luke described, this occurred while Quirinius was governor of Syria.
 
#3,420
#3,420
Septic said:
As the illustrious Sweet Brown once so profoundly professed, "Ain't nobody got time for that."
Click to expand...

It's there for those that want to read it. Nobody is twisting anybody's arm to read it. There is much proof from scripture as to who the bible clearly teaches Jesus is. :hi:
 
New posts
You must log in or register to reply here.

VN Store



Back
Top