5 Non-Negotiables from the Church Fathers on the Incarnation

[Dizerner]

or the Christ would have been a woman called “The Wife of God”.

This is kind of an aside, but I recently talked to an Omnist who claimed he had no respect for a God who did not have a wife, lol. I thought that was pretty amusing. I did point out to him the Trinity reflects the core family unit of relations as a type, that God is in fact a family.

 

[Pancho Frijoles]

Classically, we say the Son has been begotten three times.

1. Eternally outside of time in the bosom of the Father.
2. At his incarnation in his earthly birth as a baby.
3. At his Resurrection as the firstborn to rise again.

And some have added a fourth, at the time of his baptism, when a voice from God was heard declaring Jesus His Son.

 

[Pancho Frijoles]

I do try to avoid the use of the word "literal," it is not well understood by people who use it. We need to be very careful around it. There are presuppositions to the word that most people have never really thought deeply about.

It is a real pleasure exchanging views with you, Dizerner.
I find it a great opportunity for me to learn. So I thank you for that and I thank God for your presence in the Forum.

Yes, I think I have not handled the terms "literal" vs "metaphorical" properly in this Forum, as every time I use them, many think that I am talking about "real" vs "false".
It has been hard to me to explain that a metaphor is not a lie, but a truth conveyed in a way that is easier to understand or retain in our heads.
By the same token, if I say that something should not be interpreted literally, I do not mean that it has no value. On the contrary, it has so huge value, that the inspired author chose to use metaphors so that they could stick to our minds and hearts.
In fact, we are the ones that convert a metaphor or symbol into a "lie" when we don't recognize it as such and force a literal interpretation to it.

Since language is at its base a symbolic correlation of meaning, no word can be a strict one to one correspondence with its referent.

The point here would be we do believe it has a real meaning that is applicable.

Yes, absolutely.
Even when we think that we have dug deep into the meaning of a metaphor, we still find more layers of meaning beneath (or aside?) that are all precious and perhaps applicable to different circumstances of our personal spiritual experience.

 

[Pancho Frijoles]

This is kind of an aside, but I recently talked to an Omnist who claimed he had no respect for a God who did not have a wife, lol. I thought that was pretty amusing...

That's why fundamentalist Christians should not demand/expect from a person to believe that Jesus is God in order to be saved.
There are many possible meanings of the title "Son of God", as understood through centuries and across believers.
There are three, say, "basic" categories for meaning of this title, perhaps with a lot of variants between them

• In the most basic form, The Son of God is a title for the Messiah, the King of Jews that would come from the seed of David. Kings were sons of God, as God had adopted them. I guess we all agree with this "basic" understanding, although for ancient Ebionite Christians and current Muslims this was/is the only valid understanding.
• A second understanding is that Jesus is not God but has in his nature something divine. Jehovah Witnesses, Arians, and in certain way Baha'is adopt this understanding (we believe He is a "Manifestation of God"... that the eternal Word or Logos spoke through Him)
• A third understanding is that Jesus is God, as Trinitarian Christians believe.

The funny thing is that when Jesus asked his disciples who they believed he was, and Peter answered "You are the Anointed (Christ, Messiah), the Son of God", Jesus accepted and even praised that confession in those terms, without adding, modifying, correcting, or inquiring more details.

That's why I think that whatever the exact meaning of "Son of God" is, Jesus is not so interested in an accurate understanding. He is rather interested in a true discipleship from our part.

 

[Dizerner]

That's why fundamentalist Christians should not demand/expect from a person to believe that Jesus is God in order to be saved.

I get where you are coming from, but you have some fundamental misunderstandings about Christianity.

The way it works is, you don't mosey up to the text of the Bible and just think, "aw, how many ways can I fiddle around with this, it's so fun."

That's not it at all—this truth comes by revelation and with complete authority, and it denounces completely every contrary belief.

There are many possible meanings of the title "Son of God", as understood through centuries and across believers.

Son of God could mean Jesus is an alien if you just plug in whatever you want.

But Scripture tells us what it means in this instance—that Christ is the exact substance of his Father and the radiance of his glory, that he was with God in the beginning and that he was God, that through him all things were created, and for him all things were made, and by the word of his power he upholds all things. that his name is above all other names, in this age, and in the world to come, that he is before all things in in him all things are held together, that he is the Alpha and Omega, the Beginning and the End, that he is the only worthy slain Lamb who can break the seals of God's Judgment, and that all created things without exception give him all glory and honor and worship him as the ultimate authority.

Jesus is not yet another superhero showing up with all the other Bhuddas and Brahmas, he is the Almighty Infinite Transcendence that made every demon that gave these fictional gods names.

And there is NO other name under heaven by which we must be saved.

The funny thing is that when Jesus asked his disciples who they believed he was, and Peter answered "You are the Anointed (Christ, Messiah), the Son of God", Jesus accepted and even praised that confession in those terms, without adding, modifying, correcting, or inquiring more details.

Except Jesus inspired the rest of the Bible. So you kinda missed that part as I have mentioned previously.

That's why I think that whatever the exact meaning of "Son of God" is, Jesus is not so interested in an accurate understanding. He is rather interested in a true discipleship from our part.

You could not be more incorrect, and your eternal fate depends on your obedience to the only King of Kings and Lord of Lords.

True discipleship is giving him the credit he deserves in the place of God.

And his name happens to be Jesus.

 

[Pancho Frijoles]

... that God is in fact a family.

Well, if God were "in fact" a family, God would not be a personal God, since a family is not a person.
In a family of, say, 3 persons, the three persons have their own minds, their own wills. Certainly they can agree to act as if they were one, but they are not one. They need agreement. What makes an entity personal is that such entity has its own mind and will.

Believers are expected to be ONE. They are expected to be so united as if they were a single body, isn't that true?
However, this does not mean that the church is a personal entity. The church is a concept that describes a collective. The church does not have one mind and one will. On the contrary, what is great about the church is that millions of different minds and wills can agree, at least in essence, on how to act.

In conclusion, if God is a collective, the consequences are

1. We cannot have a personal relationship with God. We can either have a personal relationship with each of the 3 persons, or an impersonal relationship with the family or collective.
2. Hundreds of biblical references to God as a "He", as a singular person, that occur throughout the OT and NT, are to be interpreted metaphorically.
3. Many of those references to God, if interpreted as "Family" will become absurd (eg, starting with John 3:16, for example. Everybody understands "God" in that verse as a Person, not as a family, sending another person to the world out of love)

 

[praise_yeshua]

I get where you are coming from, but you have some fundamental misunderstandings about Christianity.

The way it works is, you don't mosey up to the text of the Bible and just think, "aw, how many ways can I fiddle around with this, it's so fun."

That's not it at all—this truth comes by revelation and with complete authority, and it denounces completely every contrary belief.



Son of God could mean Jesus is an alien if you just plug in whatever you want.

But Scripture tells us what it means in this instance—that Christ is the exact substance of his Father and the radiance of his glory, that he was with God in the beginning and that he was God, that through him all things were created, and for him all things were made, and by the word of his power he upholds all things. that his name is above all other names, in this age, and in the world to come, that he is before all things in in him all things are held together, that he is the Alpha and Omega, the Beginning and the End, that he is the only worthy slain Lamb who can break the seals of God's Judgment, and that all created things without exception give him all glory and honor and worship him as the ultimate authority.

Jesus is not yet another superhero showing up with all the other Bhuddas and Brahmas, he is the Almighty Infinite Transcendence that made every demon that gave these fictional gods names.

And there is NO other name under heaven by which we must be saved.



Except Jesus inspired the rest of the Bible. So you kinda missed that part as I have mentioned previously.



You could not be more incorrect, and your eternal fate depends on your obedience to the only King of Kings and Lord of Lords.

And his name happens to be Jesus.

You can try but you'll never "pin him down" to much of anything. He doesn't base what he believes upon reason. He has no standards whereby to establish reason.

 

[Dizerner]

You can try but you'll never "pin him down" to much of anything. He doesn't base what he believes upon reason. He has no standards whereby to establish reason.

We give the Spirit an opportunity to witness, and we trust that he does.

Sometimes that takes a lot of faith—but no man convinces anyone in his own words, intelligence and power.

We lift Jesus up, and he draws ALL men unto him, and whether they come—that's in their hands.

 

[Dizerner]

Well, if God were "in fact" a family, God would not be a personal God, since a family is not a person.
In a family of, say, 3 persons, the three persons have their own minds, their own wills. Certainly they can agree to act as if they were one, but they are not one. They need agreement. What makes an entity personal is that such entity has its own mind and will.

This is a moot point, it's just playing with semantics. Personal can mean more than one thing, it can mean "of a person" or it can mean "involving persons."

God is personal in the sense that he has relationships with persons.

Believers are expected to be ONE. They are expected to be so united as if they were a single body, isn't that true?
However, this does not mean that the church is a personal entity. The church is a concept that describes a collective. The church does not have one mind and one will. On the contrary, what is great about the church is that millions of different minds and wills can agree, at least in essence, on how to act.

Scripture says ideally the Church should be of one mind (not one literal mind in this case), but because of our sin nature it will never be perfect in this life:

with one mind striving together for the faith of the gospel, (Phil. 1:27 NKJ)
having the same love, being of one accord, of one mind. (Phil. 2:2 NKJ)
Finally, all of you be of one mind, (1 Pet. 3:8 NKJ)

In conclusion, if God is a collective, the consequences are

1. We cannot have a personal relationship with God. We can either have a personal relationship with each of the 3 persons, or an impersonal relationship with the family or collective.
2. Hundreds of biblical references to God as a "He", as a singular person, that occur throughout the OT and NT, are to be interpreted metaphorically.
3. Many of those references to God, if interpreted as "Family" will become absurd (eg, starting with John 3:16, for example. Everybody understands "God" in that verse as a Person, not as a family, sending another person to the world out of love)

This is just silly. Really. I don't mean to like, put you down, but these objections are really poor.

1. If anything a relationship with three persons is even MORE personal since there's more persons going around.
2. A corporate singular pronoun is a thing that exists in grammar, this argument is just completely invalid.
3. No, everyone does NOT understand Scripture the way you do, and you of all people should know that.

 

[praise_yeshua]

We give the Spirit an opportunity to witness, and we trust that he does.

Sometimes that takes a lot of faith—but no man convinces anyone in his own words, intelligence and power.

We lift Jesus up, and he draws ALL men unto him, and whether they come—that's in their hands.

I understand. I'm not telling you what to do or not do. Just telling you that he is like Alexander the Coppersmith. He actively seeks to discredit Jesus Christ.

Just letting you know that there isn't any reasoning with him relative to any sense of an absolute. He has none. His goal is simply to discredit Jesus Christ.

 

[Dizerner]

I understand. I'm not telling you what to do or not do. Just telling you that he is like Alexander the Coppersmith. He actively seeks to discredit Jesus Christ.

Just letting you know that there isn't any reasoning with him relative to any sense of an absolute. He has none. His goal is simply to discredit Jesus Christ.

We should not judge people's heart and intentions, or speak an evil thing, only God knows where a person is.

We should trust that no one is beyond the grace of God, always hope for the best, and know that he has the power to choose better by God's grace.

 

[Pancho Frijoles]

You could not be more incorrect, and your eternal fate depends on your obedience to the only King of Kings and Lord of Lords.

True discipleship is giving him the credit he deserves in the place of God.

Perhaps I haven't understood you.
In one of your posts, you said that belief in Jesus deity is not necessary for salvation. Now you say it is? I'm confused.
My apologies in advance if I am not following you correctly.
Here is your post:

I don't believe it is necessary to believe in Christ's deity to be saved, but I do believe it is necessary to believe Christ was sent to atone for sins to be saved.

 

[Dizerner]

Perhaps I haven't understood you.
In one of your posts, you said that belief in Jesus deity is not necessary for salvation. Now you say it is? I'm confused.
My apologies in advance if I am not following you correctly.

No problem.

Please understand this clearly—one can give Jesus the authority and place of God as the Savior of their sins without fully understanding that he is. They just don't realize it yet. As long as you put Jesus in the place that God is, you don't have to necessarily understand that he is God.

1. Give all authority and power to Jesus as Scripture does.
2. Trust that Jesus was sent by God as the atonement of your sins.
3. Follow a life of discipleship that puts Jesus first.

God is merciful, and even a partially deceived soul can attempt to put Jesus first while in confusion denying his deity.

You CANNOT however, and please be clear about this, give Jesus equal rank and authority with other gods.

I know that's a very nuanced point, but I trust you with it.

 

[praise_yeshua]

We should not judge people's heart and intentions, or speak an evil thing, only God knows where a person is.

Mat 12:35 A good man out of the good treasure of the heart bringeth forth good things: and an evil man out of the evil treasure bringeth forth evil things.
Mat 12:36 But I say unto you, That every idle word that men shall speak, they shall give account thereof in the day of judgment.
Mat 12:37 For by thy words thou shalt be justified, and by thy words thou shalt be condemned.

We should trust that no one is beyond the grace of God, always hope for the best, and know that he has the power to choose better by God's grace.

Never said otherwise.

 

[praise_yeshua]

No problem.

Please understand this clearly—one can give Jesus the authority and place of God as the Savior of their sins without fully understanding that he is. They just don't realize it yet. As long as you put Jesus in the place that God is, you don't have to necessarily understand that he is God.

1. Give all authority and power to Jesus as Scripture does.
2. Trust that Jesus was sent by God as the atonement of your sins.
3. Follow a life of discipleship that puts Jesus first.

God is merciful, and even a partially deceived soul can attempt to put Jesus first while in confusion denying his deity.

You CANNOT however, and please be clear about this, give Jesus equal rank and authority with other gods.

I know that's a very nuanced point, but I trust you with it.

Joh 8:21 Then said Jesus again unto them, I go my way, and ye shall seek me, and shall die in your sins: whither I go, ye cannot come.
Joh 8:22 Then said the Jews, Will he kill himself? because he saith, Whither I go, ye cannot come.
Joh 8:23 And he said unto them, Ye are from beneath; I am from above: ye are of this world; I am not of this world.
Joh 8:24 I said therefore unto you, that ye shall die in your sins: for if ye believe not that I am he, ye shall die in your sins.

 

[Pancho Frijoles]

This is just silly. Really. I don't mean to like, put you down, but these objections are really poor.

Don't worry, my friend. I will not feel you are putting me down. You can be as straightforward as you want, since you are addressing my arguments, and not my person.
Well, I don't think my arguments are silly. I think they are solid and this is why:

1. If anything a relationship with three persons is even MORE personal since there's more persons going around.

In the Trinitarian framework, the relationship with the Father is personal, as well as the relationship with Jesus is personal and the relationship with the Holy Spirit is personal. (How is this sustainable in practice, is subject of another debate).
What you can't have, in such theological framework, is a personal relationship with God.
You can't have a personal relationship with the United Nations, with the Academy of Sciences or with my family. What you can have is a personal relationship with the specific individuals who compose those collectives.

The ancient Greeks thought that they could have personal relationships with many divine persons. They were consistent in their thinking in this regard. They never claimed to have a relationship with a single God.

2. A corporate singular pronoun is a thing that exists in grammar, this argument is just completely invalid.

I grant that, from the point of view of grammar... not from a philological, theological or historical view.
You would be holding a concept of God totally different to the concept that Israelites had, that the audience of Jesus had, that the disciples had, and that Jesus had.
No Jew in history has thought that the references about YHWH or Adonai as a "He" actually refers to a collective. They have always thought of YWHW as One Person, at least from the exile in Babylone onwards (we can talk about the evolution of the concept of God in Hebrew culture from polytheism to strict monotheism, the meaning of Elohim, etc, but perhaps that's a separate discussion).

If you believe in a Corporate God I respect that, as I respect the ancient Greeks who believed in a Pantheon.
The Bible and reason do not present us a Corporate God, however.

 

[Dizerner]

Joh 8:24 I said therefore unto you, that ye shall die in your sins: for if ye believe not that I am he, ye shall die in your sins.

I do agree with the critics that "I am he" here refers to the role of Messiah.

 

[Pancho Frijoles]

No problem.

Please understand this clearly—one can give Jesus the authority and place of God as the Savior of their sins without fully understanding that he is. They just don't realize it yet. As long as you put Jesus in the place that God is, you don't have to necessarily understand that he is God.

1. Give all authority and power to Jesus as Scripture does.
2. Trust that Jesus was sent by God as the atonement of your sins.
3. Follow a life of discipleship that puts Jesus first.

Thanks for the clarification.
You are definitely many steps ahead of other Evangelicals, who send Jehovah Witnesses to hell because they deny Jesus deity.
As you know, a JW can meet the three points you give

• They believe Jesus was given all authority from The Father, as the Scripture says.
• They believe Jesus was sent by God as the atonement of our sins
• They believe in following a life of discipleship that puts Jesus first.

God is merciful, and even a partially deceived soul can attempt to put Jesus first while in confusion denying his deity.

I welcome your statement.
Confusion is part of our human existence in all realms of theoretical knowledge, and Theology is no exception.
But God's mercy operates despite our confusion.

You CANNOT however, and please be clear about this, give Jesus equal rank and authority with other gods.

I would never do that.
To me, Jesus' Father is His God and my God (John 10:17) the Only and True God (John 17:1-3)

Furthermore, the relevance of considering Jesus as God or not is theological, because in practice, obeying Jesus means obeying God, and rejecting Jesus means rejecting God. Even kneeling down before Jesus means doing it for the sake of His Father.
So I have no problem about that, my friend.

 

[Dizerner]

Mat 12:35 A good man out of the good treasure of the heart bringeth forth good things: and an evil man out of the evil treasure bringeth forth evil things.

Yes, but a this is kind of a different issue than claiming to know a person's intentions.

Some people can mean well or be genuinely deceived, even Paul said he was ignorant.

 

[praise_yeshua]

I do agree with the critics that "I am he" here refers to the role of Messiah.

I'll play along.

What does Messiah mean?