Logikos
Member
I don't care.
In what way does that imply that He had two spirits?
Saying it doesn't make it so.
The death of Jesus was a sacrifice
- Thread starter Joe
- Start date
Logikos
Member
I've responded to what people have said on this forum. Nothing more, nothing less.
It isn't that I have no clue about it, it's that I don't let you assume that I believe it and argue against something I haven't said.
A confusion that would be cleared up if people would stop reading something into what I say and start responding to what I have actually stated.
I am on a Christian web forum that debates doctrines that are purported to be Christian doctrines.
Not necessary.
I can read them and understand them just fine, thank you.
In short I do not debate labels. I debate doctrines, specific doctrines as well as ideas and concepts that are conveyed through what is actually stated in people's posts. I try my best to refrain from reading things into posts. That isn't always accomplished nor is it always even possible. When that's the case, then I can make errors just like the next guy but am more than happy to be corrected or asked for clarification or whatever.
So you do not care all orthodox Christian theologies refute you
You do not care official doctrine of all christian denominations run contrary to your claims
Got it.
Logikos
Member
You miss my point.It is in the doctrine of penal substitution
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Penal substitution (also called penal substitutionary atonement or, sometimes, esp. in older writings, called forensic theory)[1][2] is a theory of the atonement within Protestant Christian theology, which declares that Christ, voluntarily submitting to God the Father's plan, was punished (penalized) in the place of (substitution) sinners, thus satisfying the demands of justice and propitiation, so God can justly forgive sins making us at one with God (atonement). It began with the German Reformation leader Martin Luther and continued to develop within the Calvinist tradition[1][2][3][4][5] as a specific understanding of substitutionary atonement. The penal model teaches that the substitutionary nature of Jesus' death is understood in the sense of a substitutionary fulfilment of legal demands for the offenses of sins.....
The penal substitution theory teaches that Jesus suffered the penalty due, according to God the Father's wrath for humanity's sins. Penal substitution derives from the idea that divine forgiveness must satisfy divine justice, that is, that God is not willing or able to simply forgive sin without first requiring a satisfaction for it. It states that God gave himself in the person of his Son, Jesus, to suffer the death, punishment and curse due to fallen humanity as the penalty for our sin.
Penal substitution - Wikipedia
en.wikipedia.org
perhaps you are unfamilar with all that the doctrine teaches
Death is the PENALTY for sin.
We've all sinned and so deserve death.
Jesus was put to death for us so that we wouldn't have to be!
Thus, Jesus' death stands in substitution for ours.
That sounds to me like penal substitution to me!
What I am trying really hard to do is to get you to understand that it's just semantics! At least it is as far as I can tell.
You don't like the word "wrath".
Well, do you like the word "death" better?
What difference does it make?
Read Romans much?
I don't care anything about those articles. They prove nothing! Whether I believe in PSA or not.
Again, you miss the point! I wasn't accusing you of anything.
The point is that a doctrine's history isn't proof of its validity, nor is the fact that Calvinists teach it.
For example, Calvinists teach that God is impassible. That doctrine is not false BECAUSE Calvin taught it. It's wrong because it in conflict with vast quantities of scripture as well as the righteous character of God and with the principles of sound reason.
A doctrines history might be relevant evidence in relation to its validity but that would need to be established. Merely telling me that it was formulated in the 16th century does precisely nothing to falsify the doctrine. If you call yourself anything other than a Roman Catholic, then you believe doctrines that were formulated in the 16th century! Are they all wrong too? Obviously not!
Here is what you stated, "I do not base my doctrine on what PSA holds to. I wouldn't know what it holds to.".
This means you don't no anything about it.
There is no need to continue.
God Bless
Logikos
Member
They do not refute me. Disagreement doesn't count as refutation.
Also, what you are engaging here has a name. It's called an appeal to popularity fallacy. It's a fallacy for really excellent reasons.
Not in the context of debating doctrine, I don't, no!
Also, not "all christian denominations" believe that Jesus had to spirits! This thread is the first place I have ever encountered anyone suggesting any such thing, including the literal hundreds of Calvinists that I've debated of the last 25 years who all believe in the "hypostatic union". Not one of them has ever said to me that Jesus had two spirits. Two natures? Yes! They say that all day, every day. "Two spirits"? No! Never. Not even once until you said it yesterday.
civic
Well-known member
PSA is a doctrine but it’s nowhere to be found in scripture hence it’s unbiblical just like tulip is from the same ones who invented PSA to fit with tulip.
civic
Well-known member
Conflating since death and wrath are not synonymous.
Afraid you simply do not know what you are talking aboutThey do not refute me. Disagreement doesn't count as refutation.
Also, what you are engaging here has a name. It's called an appeal to popularity fallacy. It's a fallacy for really excellent reasons.
Not in the context of debating doctrine, I don't, no!
Also, not "all christian denominations" believe that Jesus had to spirits! This thread is the first place I have ever encountered anyone suggesting any such thing, including the literal hundreds of Calvinists that I've debated of the last 25 years who all believe in the "hypostatic union". Not one of them has ever said to me that Jesus had two spirits. Two natures? Yes! They say that all day, every day. "Two spirits"? No! Never. Not even once until you said it yesterday.
All Christian denominations affirm Christ was fully man and fully God
For that to be so he had to have a human Spirit and a divine one as well
BTW why do you mention Calvinist as I am not a Calvinist
You are just apparently unwilling to believe the evidence
Then you do not fully understand what the atonement theory of Penal substitution entails
It includes the idea of imputation
Our sins were transfer to Christ
Christ therefore took upon himself the wrath of God again sin
God the father therefore forsook Christ upon the cross
No it is not just semantics
Penal substitution affirms wrath
Insists God the father exhausts his wrath against sin upon Christ
It has God the father expressing wrath upon God the son and forsaking him
The idea is anti trinitarian
There is no formulated atonement theory in Romans
You argue based upon a theory you do not understand
Penal substitutionary atonement
Penal substitutionary atonement refers to the doctrine that Christ died on the cross as a substitute for sinners. God imputed the guilt of our sins to Christ, and he, in our place, bore the punishment that we deserve. This was a full payment for sins, which satisfied both the wrath and the righteousness of God, so that He could forgive sinners without compromising His own holy standard.Background
The Penal-Substitution Theory of the atonement was formulated by the 16th century Reformers as an extension of Anselm's Satisfaction theory. Anselm's theory was correct in introducing the satisfaction aspect of Christ's work and its necessity; however the Reformers saw it as insufficient because it was referenced to God's honor rather than his justice and holiness and was couched more in terms of a commercial transaction than a penal substitution. This Reformed view says simply that Christ died for man, in man's place, taking his sins and bearing them for him. The bearing of man's sins takes the punishment for them and sets the believer free from the penal demands of the law: The righteousness of the law and the holiness of God are satisfied by this substitution.
https://www.theopedia.com/penal-substitutionary-atonement
See you are unwilling to understand what the theory you argue for entails
No one denies Christ died for us, but that does not entail a belief in the Penal substitutionary atonement theory
It seems you take it mean just that Christ died for us
All atonement theories affirm that
that does not make them the penal substitutionary atonement theory
BTW you are wrong here as well
The earliest church was not Roman Catholic
1600 years men believed Christ died for them without holding to the Penal substitutionary atonement theory
civic
Well-known member
Tom it looks like he is denying a fundamental aspect of every man that we all have the spirit that is in man a human spirit. Scripture says it’s the spirit of man and that he Holy Spirit that is in us bears witness with our spirit that we are the children of God Roman’s 8.
Jesus being fully human has a human spirit and since He is God has the Divine Spirit( God is Spirit). 1 plus 1 = 2
Just because someone has never heard the truth before does t make it untrue. Talk about a fallacious argument lol.
Now he has no excuse for his error and has been corrected He can accept the truth or reject it. That’s on him.
hope this helps !!!
Jesus being fully human has a human spirit and since He is God has the Divine Spirit( God is Spirit). 1 plus 1 = 2
Just because someone has never heard the truth before does t make it untrue. Talk about a fallacious argument lol.
Now he has no excuse for his error and has been corrected He can accept the truth or reject it. That’s on him.
hope this helps !!!
He clearly has little understanding of core Christian doctrines concerning Christ and the TrinityTom it looks like he is denying a fundamental aspect of every man that we all have the spirit that is in man a human spirit. Scripture says it’s the spirit of man and that he Holy Spirit that is in us bears witness with our spirit that we are the children of God Roman’s 8.
Jesus being fully human has a human spirit and since He is God has the Divine Spirit( God is Spirit). 1 plus 1 = 2
Just because someone has never heard the truth before does t make it untrue. Talk about a fallacious argument lol.
Now he has no excuse for his error and has been corrected He can accept the truth or reject it. That’s on him.
hope this helps !!!
101G
Well-known member
GINOLJC, to all.
Your first, second, and third ERROR of the Day. 101G will Give you several scriptures that states that God is ONE PERSON. as the old folks say, if one start right one will end right.
Let 101G start off right. attention all Trinitarians. now this is on topic, because it will show why and how PAS was accomplish.
Scripture #1. Genesis 1:1 "In the beginning God created the heaven and the earth." since we're speaking of God let's get right to the term "God" here. it is the Hebrew word, and 101G is using the Mickelson's Enhanced Strong's Dictionaries of the Greek and Hebrew Testaments
God: H430 אֱלֹהִים 'elohiym (el-o-heem') n-m.
אֱלֹהֵי 'elohiy (el-o-hee') [alternate plural]
1. (literally) supreme ones.
2. (hence, in the ordinary sense) gods.
3. (specifically, in the plural, especially with the article) the Supreme God (i.e. the all supreme).
4. (sometimes) supreme, used as a superlative.
5. (occasionally, by way of deference) supreme magistrates, the highest magistrates of the land.
6. (also) the supreme angels (entities of unspecified type).
[plural of H433]
KJV: angels, X exceeding, God (gods)(-dess, -ly), X (very) great, judges, X mighty.
Root(s): H433
the first thing to Notice is that "God" here in definition is plural, but written singular. THIS IS OUR FIRST KEY TO GOD AS ONE SINGLE PERSON WHO IS A PLURALITY OF HIMSELF. KEEP THIS BIT OF INFORMATION IN ONE'S HEAD.
next, notice that this term God, which is written singular, but is a plurality, HOW? in the definition above it's the [plural of H433] take note it is the plural of, of, of, of, H433, not FROM H433, but "OF" H433. this is very important to know. for "of" according to the dictionary means, "expressing the relationship between a part and a whole". Remember this definition. ok, so who or what is H433? it is the Hebrew word,
H433 אֱלוֹהַּ 'elowahh (el-o'-ah) n-m.
אֱלֹהַּ 'eloahh (el-o'-ah) [shortened (rarely)]
1. one with supreme strength and ability.
2. the Supreme Being, God the Creator, Yahweh by name.
3. a supreme entity, a god-like creature (that is, one of God's supreme creations, or one of man's inventions).
[probably prolonged (emphat.) from H410]
KJV: God, god.
Root(s): H410
WHAT? definition #2 states, 2. the Supreme Being, God the Creator, Yahweh by name. HOLD THE PRESS, is not God: H430 אֱלֹהִים 'elohiym (el-o-heem')
אֱלֹהֵי 'elohiy (el-o-hee') [alternate plural]
the one in Genesis 1:1 is the Supreme Being, God the Creator, God almighty? is there two Gods, H430 אֱלֹהִים 'elohiym (el-o-heem') here in Genesis 1:1 and this H433 אֱלוֹהַּ 'elowahh (el-o'-ah) from where God, H430 אֱלֹהִים 'elohiym (el-o-heem') is "OF", notice is "OF", and not from? so where and do this H433 אֱלוֹהַּ 'elowahh (el-o'-ah) exist at and is from?
some may say...... "Well, this proves the PERSONS of the trinity, for in the beginning God, "US", (the H430 אֱלֹהִים 'elohiym (el-o-heem') and the H433 אֱלוֹהַּ 'elowahh (el-o'-ah)), made man in "OUR"/Their image. that would cover at least two persons at least, but what about the "Spirit of, of, of, God that in the beginning moved upon the face of the waters, (Genesis 1:2).
now if H430 אֱלֹהִים 'elohiym (el-o-heem') is one Person, and H433 אֱלוֹהַּ 'elowahh (el-o'-ah) is a second Person, where is the Holy Spirit definition showing that he ia God also a third Person? for the Spirit of God is the Hebrew word,
H7307 רוּחַ ruwach (roo'-ach) n-f.
1. wind.
2. (by resemblance) breath, i.e. a sensible (or even violent) exhalation.
3. (figuratively) life, anger, unsubstantiality.
4. (by extension) a region of the sky.
5. (by resemblance) spirit, but only of a rational being (including its expression and functions).
[from H7306]
KJV: air, anger, blast, breath, X cool, courage, mind, X quarter, X side, spirit(-ual), tempest, X vain, (whirl-)wind(-y).
Root(s): H7306
here Spirit of, of, of, God has no reference to being God as a third separate Person. ...... but H430 אֱלֹהִים 'elohiym (el-o-heem') and H433 אֱלוֹהַּ 'elowahh (el-o'-ah) do.
now, one other important point. the term "OF" we gave a worldly definition, well let's give a biblical definition. using the Vine's Expository Dictionary of New Testament Words OF: "translates the genitive case of nouns, with various shades of meaning. Of these the subjective and objective are mentioned here, which need careful distinction". keep this definition in mind also.
so a recap. God is a plurality, but written singular. Good so far, now we will examine why God is a plurality, but written singular. and the reason why we're going there first, and not examining the term beginning here in Genesis 1:1 for both will reveal themselves at the same time for understanding as to WHO and WHAT God is. so, let's get to the next step. how God is ONE PERSON, and yet a Plurality. this is found in the "Shema", meaning "hear". and most Christian has not heard.
Deuteronomy 6:4 "Hear, O Israel: The LORD our God is one LORD:" notice "ONE" LORD, who is God..... i.e. the Father? ..... (smile). and this Hebrew term "ONE" is,
H259 אֶחָד 'echad (ech-awd') adj.
1. (properly) united, i.e. one.
2. (as an ordinal) first.
[a numeral from H258]
KJV: a, alike, alone, altogether, and, any(-thing), apiece, a certain, (dai-)ly, each (one), + eleven, every, few, first, + highway, a man, once, one, only, other, some, together.
Root(s): H258
most and many see definition #1 go with it as Many a Christians and some Messianic Jews do also. a UNITED ONE. hence many can say, see there is the trinity. or as some who believe in "Pattern theology" only two persons in the Godhead. neither are biblical. but what is biblical lay in definition#2. (as an ordinal) first. for God is the First and the Last, this is Biblical. and this First/LORD, (all Cap) and Last/Lord. hence Father/LORD/The First.... one Person? and Son/Lord/The Last .... the second person? so let's see if this hold to Scripture.
101G calls the Prophet Isaiah to the witness Stand against the Trinity and Pattern theology. he states, Isaiah 41:4 "Who hath wrought and done it, calling the generations from the beginning? I the LORD, the first, and with the last; I am he." here our brother Isaiah the prophet of the ONE GOD said that God the "LORD", all caps is the "FIRST", one Person. and he, (the LORD a single Person), is "WITH" the Last. a many has said that the Last here means the Last Generation. well some Hebrew scholars and also the Brown-Driver-Briggs' Hebrew Definitions dictionary render the term "Last" as a single enity, and not plural. one can check this out at bible hub. so the LORD, all cap is "WITH" the Last and "With" means, accompanied by (another person or thing). notice another person, and not persons and the trinitarians jump on this and say, see, this is two separate persons, the LORD all caps, and the Lord, who is God, Jesus the Christ the .... "LAST" .... Adam. see, two person....... ok, 101G hear you. but hold your horses. let our brother finish his testimony. for Isaiah also said, Isaiah 44:6 "Thus saith the LORD the King of Israel, and his redeemer the LORD of hosts; I am the first, and I am the last; and beside me there is no God." again many say see, God is the First as Deuteronomy 6:4 states the Ordinal First, and the Son, the Lord as the Ordinal Last....... see, this proves the trinity again. ok, 101G gets it, but can we let our brother Isaiah finish his testimony? thank you.
Isaiah 48:12 "Hearken unto me, O Jacob and Israel, my called; I am he; I am the first, I also am the last." say what? the First is "ALSO" the Last? yes, the same one person. for "ALSO" means "in addition; too". Uh O!. God is the First/Father/LORD, (all caps), and he God, the same ONE PERSON, is "ALSO" the Last/Lord/Son? yes. the same one person. this is the POWER of biblical KNOWLEDGE when the Holy Spirit teach us. let the bible interpret itself. for there is no private interpretation of the scriptures. the First is the Last in Ordinal designations, well that's OT. now, NT, 101G call our brother John to the stand.
John 1:1 "In the beginning was the Word, and the Word was with God, and the Word was God." THERE IS THAT SAME WORD "WITH" AS IN ISAIAH TESTIMONY. Why because John 1:1c confirms what Isaiah has already proved. listen, "and the Word was God." the same one person who was WITH God, John 1:1b is "GOD", John 1:1c.
this is why John 1:3 agrees with Isaiah 44:24...... (smile), for only ONE PERSON "MADE ALL THINGS", because the "PERSON" in John 1:1 & 3, is the same ONE person in Isaiah 44:24.
101G will stop here before he gives away the kitchen sink..... (smile). for the scriptures do not LIE.
now 101G said he left the term "Beginning" in Genesis 1:1 for a reason. well here it is to reveal what Isaiah said about God being the First and Last, and as what John is saying that Jesus is that First and Last..... here it is. the Hebrew term "BEGINNING"
H7225 רֵאשִׁית re'shiyth (ray-sheeth') n-f.
1. the first, in place, time, order or rank.
2. (specifically) a firstfruit.
[from the same as H7218]
KJV: beginning, chief(-est), first(-fruits, part, time), principal thing.
Root(s): H7218
there is the key to understanding the Godhead as ONE PERSON, in a ECHAD of place, time, order or rank.
Oh this is just too easy. and all of this is confirmed by Philippians 2:6 for starters.
101G.
So you are not a trinitarian
THE BIBLICAL BASIS OF THE DOCTRINE OF THE TRINITY
I. THERE IS ONE GOD
A. One God: explicit statements
1. OT: Deut. 4:35, 39: 32:39; 2 Sam. 22:32; Isa. 37:20; 43:10; 44:6-8; 45:5, 14, 21-22; 46:9
2. NT: John 5:44; Rom. 3:30; 16:27; 1 Cor. 8:4-6; Gal. 3:20; Eph. 4:6; 1 Tim. 1:17; 2:5; James 2:19; Jude 25
B. None like God (in His essence)
1. Explicit statements: Ex. 8:10; 9:14; 15:11; 2 Sam. 7:22; 1 Chr. 17:20; Psa 86:8; 1 Kgs. 8:23; Isa. 40:18, 25; 44:7; 46:5, 9; Jer. 10:6-7; Micah 7:18
2. Being like God a Satanic lie: Gen. 3:5; Isa. 14:14; John 8:44 3. Fallen man became "like God" only in that he took upon himself to know good and evil, not that he acquired godhood: Gen. 3:22
C. Only one true God: 2 Chr. 15:3; Jer. 10:10; John 17:3; 1 Thess. 1:9; 1 John 5:20-21
D. All other "gods" are therefore false gods (idols), not gods at all: Deut. 32:21; 1 Sam. 12:21; Psa. 96:5; Isa. 37:19; 41:23-24, 29; Jer. 2:11; 5:7; 16:20; 1 Cor. 8:4; 10:19-20
E. Demons, not gods, are the powers behind false worship: Deut. 32:17; Psa. 106:37; 1 Cor. 10:20; Gal. 4:8
F. How men are meant to be "like God"
1. The image of God indicates that man is to represent God and share His moral character, not that man can be metaphysically like God: Gen. 1:26-27; 5:1; 1 Cor. 11:7; Eph. 4:24; Col. 3:10
2. The goal of being like Christ has the following aspects only: a. Sharing His moral character: 1 John 3:2; Rom. 8:29 b. Being raised with glorified, immortal bodies like His: Phil. 3:21; 1 Cor. 15:49
3. Becoming partakers of the divine nature refers again to moral nature ("having escaped the corruption that is in the world by lust"), not metaphysical nature: 2 Pet. 1:4; see also Heb. 12:10; on the meaning of "partakers," see 1 Cor. 10:18, 20; 2 Cor. 1:17; 1 Pet. 5 :1
G. Are mighty or exalted men gods?
1. No Scripture says explicitly that men are gods
2. Powerful, mighty men are explicitly said not to be gods: Ezek. 28:2, 9: Isa. 31:3; 2 Thess. 2:4
3. Men and God are opposite, exclusive categories: Num. 23:19; Isa. 31:3; Ezek. 28:2, 9; Hosea 11:9; Matt. 19:26; John 10:33; Acts 12:22; 1 Cor. 14:2
4. Moses was "as God," not really a god: Ex. 4:16; 7:1
5. Ezek. 32:21 speaks of warriors or soldiers as "mighty gods," but in context they are so regarded by their pagan nations, not by God or Israel; cf. Ezek. 28:2, 9
6. The elohim before whom accused stood in Exodus was God Himself, not judges, as many translations incorrectly render: Ex. 22:8-9, 28: compare Deut. 19:17
7. The use of elohim in Psalm 82, probably in reference to wicked judges, as cited by Jesus in John 10:34-36, does not mean that men really can be gods.
a. It is Asaph, not the Lord, who calls the judges elohim in Psa. 82:1, 6. This is important, even though we agree that Psa. 82 is inspired.
b. Asaph's meaning is not, "Although you are gods, you will die like men" (which is how Jehovah's Witnesses, Mormons, etc., read it), but rather, "I called you gods, but in fact you will all die like the men that you really are."
c. The Psalmist was no more saying that wicked judges were truly gods than he was saying that they were truly "sons of the Most High" (v. 6b).
d. Thus, Psa. 82:1 calls the judges elohim in irony. They had quite likely taken their role in judgment (cf. point 5. above) to mean they were elohim, or gods, and Asaph's message is that these so-called gods were mere men who would die under
the judgment of the true elohim (vss. 1-2, 7-8).
e Christ's use of this passage in John 10:34-36 does not negate the above interpretation of Psalm 82.
f. The words, "the Scripture cannot be broken," means "the Scripture cannot go without having some ultimate fulfillment" (cf. John 7:23; Matt. 5:17). Thus Jesus is saying that what the OT judges were called in irony, He is in reality; He does what they could not
do and is what they could never be (see the Adam-Christ contrasts in Rom. 5:12-21 and 1 Cor. 15:21-22, 45 for a similar use of OT Scripture).
g. The clause, "those against whom the word of God came" (John 10:3 5) shows that this "word" was a word of judgment against the so-called gods; which shows that they were false gods, not really gods at all.
h. Finally, these wicked men were certainly not "godlike" or "divine" by nature, so that in any case the use of elohim to refer to them must be seen as figurative, not literal.
8. Even if men were gods (which they are not), this would be irrelevant to Jesus, since He was God (or "a god," as the Jehovah's Witnesses translate) as a preexistent spirit before creation: John 1:1
The biblical Basis of the trinity - Robert Bowman
end pt1
Last edited:
H. Are angels gods?
1. No Scripture explicitly states that angels are gods
2. Demonic spirits are not gods, 1 Cor. 10:20; Gal. 4:8; thus, being "mighty spirits" does not make angels gods
3. Satan is therefore also a false god: 2 Cor. 4:4
4. Psalm 8:5 does not teach that angels are gods.
a. Psa. 8:5 is paraphrased in Heb. 2:7, not quoted literally (cf. Psa. 68:18 with Eph. 4:8). In Psa. 8:5, elohim certainly means God, not angels, since Psa. 8:3-8 parallels Gen. 1:1, 8, 16, 26-28. Note that the Psalmist is speaking the man's exalted place in creation,
whereas Hebrews is speaking of the lower place taken by Christ in becoming a man. Thus, Heb. 2:7 may not mean to equate angels with gods at all.
b. Even if Heb. 2:7 does imply that angels are "gods," in the context of Hebrews 1-2 these angels would be those falsely exalted above Christ: Note Heb. 1:6 (which quotes Psa. 97:7, which definitely speaks of "gods" in the sense of false gods); and cf. Col. 2:16 on
the problem of the worship of angels
5. Elsewhere in the Psalms angels, if spoken of as gods, are considered false gods: Psa. 29:1; 86:8-10; 89:6; 95:3; 96:4-5; 97:7-9; 135:5; 136:2; 138:1; cf. Ex. 15;11; 18:11; Deut. 10:17; 1 Chr. 16:25; 2 Chr. 2:5
6. Even if angels were gods (which the above shows they are not), that would be irrelevant to Jesus, since He is not an angelic being, but the Son who is worshipped by the angels as their Creator, Lord, and God: Heb. 1:1-13
I. Conclusion: If there is only one God, one true God, all other gods being fals e gods, neither men nor angels being gods, and none even like God by nature -- all of which the Bible says repeatedly and explicitly -- then we must conclude that there is indeed only one
God.
II. THIS ONE GOD IS KNOWN IN THE OT AS JEHOVAH/YAHWEH ("THE L ORD")
A. Texts where Jehovah is said to be elohim or el: Deut. 4:35, 39: Psa. 100:3; etc.
B. Texts where the compound "Jehovah God" (Yahweh Elohim) is used: Gen. 2-3; 9:26; 24; Ex. 3:15-18; 4:5; 2 Sam. 7:22, 25; etc.
C. Conclusion: Jehovah is the only God, the only el/elohim
III. GOD IS A UNIQUE, INCOMPREHENSIBLE BEING
A. Only one God, thus unique: see I.A.
B. None even like God: see I.B.
C. God cannot be fully comprehended: 1 Cor. 8:2-3
D. God can only be known insofar as the Son reveals Him: Matt. 11:25-27; John 1:18
E. Analogical language needed to describe God: Ezek. 1:26-28 Rev. 1:13-16
F. God is transcendent, entirely distinct from and different than the universe, as the carpenter is distinct from the bench
1. Separate from the world: Isa. 40:22; Acts 17:24
2. Contrasted with the world: Psa. 102:25-27; 1 John 2:15-17 3. Created the world: Gen. 1:1; Psa. 33:6; 102:25; Isa. 42:5; 44:24; John 1:3; Rom. 11:36; Heb. 1:2; 11:3
IV. THE FATHER OF JESUS CHRIST IS GOD
A. Explicit statements: John 17:3; 1 Cor. 8:6; etc.
B. The expression, "the God and Father of our Lord Jesus Christ": 2 Cor. 1:3; Eph. 1:3; 1 Pet. 1:3
V. JESUS CHRIST IS GOD
A. Explicit statements:
1. Isa. 9:6; note 10:21. Trans. which render "mighty hero," etc., are inconsistent in their rendering of 10:21. Also note that Ezek. 32:21 is (a) not in the same context, as is Isa. 10:21, and (b) speaking of false gods, cf. I.G.5. above.
2. John 1:1. Even if Jesus here is called "a god" (NWT), since there is only one God, Jesus is that God. However, the NWT rendering is a mistranslation. Other passages using the Greek word for God (theos) in the same construction are always rendered "God"
Mark 12:27; Luke 20:38; John 8:54; Phil. 2:13; Heb. 11:16. Passages in which a shift occurs from ho theos ("the God") to theos ("God") never imply a shift in meaning: Mark 12:27; Luke 20:37-38; John 3:2; 13:3; Rom. 1;21; 1 Thess. 1:9; Heb. 9:14; 1 Pet. 4:10-11.
3. John 1:18. The best manuscripts have "the unique God" (monogenes, frequently rendered "only-begotten," actually means "one of a kind," "unique," though in the NT always in context of a son or daughter). Even if one translates "only-begotten," the idea is not of a
"begotten god" as opposed to an "unbegotten god."
4. John 20:28. Compare Rev. 4:11, where the same construction is used in the plural ("our") instead of the singular ("my"). See also Psa. 35:23. Note that Christ's response indicates that Thomas's acclamation was not wrong. Also note that John 20:17 does show that
the Father was Jesus' "God" (due to Jesus becoming a man), but the words "my God" as spoken by Thomas later in the same chapter must mean no less than in v. 17. Thus, what the Father is to Jesus in His humanity, Jesus is to Thomas (and therefore to us as
well).
5. Acts 20:28: "the church of God which He purchased with His own blood." The variant readings (e.g., "the church of the Lord") show that the original was understood to mean "His own blood," not "the blood of His own [Son]" (since otherwise no one would
have thought to change it). Thus, all other renderings are attempts to evade the startling clarity and meaning of this passage.
6. Rom. 9:5. While grammatically this is not the only possible interpretation, the consistent form of doxologies in Scripture, as well as the smoothest reading of the text, supports the identification of Christ as "God" in this verse.
7. Titus 2:13. Grammatically and contextually, this is one of the strongest proof-texts for the deity of Christ. Sharp's first rule, properly understood, proves that the text should be translated "our great God and Savior" (cf. same construction in Luke 20:37; Rev. 1:6; and
many other passages). Note also that Paul always uses the word "manifestation" ("appearing") of Christ: 2 Thess. 2:8; 1 Tim. 6:14; 2 Tim. 1:10; 4:1, 8.
8. Heb. 1:8. The rendering, "God is your throne," is nonsense -- God is not a throne, He is the one who sits on the throne! Also "God is your throne," if taken to mean God is the source of one's rule, could be said about any angelic ruler -- but Hebrews 1 is arguing that
Jesus is superior to the angels.
9. 2 Pet. 1:1. The same construction is used here as in Titus 2:13; see the parallel passage in 2 Pet. 1:11; 2:20; 3:2, 18. 10. 1 John 5:20. Note that the most obvious antecedent for "this " is Jesus Christ. Also note that the "eternal life" is Christ, as can be seen from 1:2.
B. Jesus is Jehovah/Yahweh:
1. Rom. 10:9-13. Note the repeated "for," which links these verses closely together. The "Lord" of 10:13 must be the "Lord" of 10:9, 12.
2. Phil. 2:9-11. In context, the "name that is above every name" is "Lord" (vs. 11), i.e., Jehovah.
3. Heb. 1:10. Here God the Father addresses the Son as "Lord," in a quotation of Psa. 102:25 (cf. 102:24, where the person addressed is called "God"). Since here the Father addresses the Son as "Lord," this cannot be explained away as a text in which a creature
addresses Christ as God/Lord in a merely representational sense.
4. 1 Pet. 2:3. This verse is nearly an exact quotation of Psa. 34:8a, where "Lord" is Jehovah. From 1 Pet. 2:4-8 it is also clear that "the Lord" in v. 3 is Jesus.
5. 1 Pet. 3:14-15. These verses are a clear reference to Isa. 8:12-13, where the one who is to be regarded as holy is Jehovah.
C. Jesus has the titles of God
1. Titles belonging only to God
a. The first and the last: Rev. 1:17; 22:13; cf. Isa. 44:6
b. King of kings and Lord of lords: 1 Tim. 6:15; Rev. 17:14; 19:16
2. Titles belonging in the ultimate sense only to God
a. Savior: Luke 2:11; John 4:42; 1 John 4:14; Tit. 2:13, cf. v. 10; etc.; cf. Isa. 43:11; 45:21-22; 1 Tim. 4:10; on Jesus becoming the source of salvation, Heb. 5:9, cf. Ex. 15:2; Psa. 118:14, 21
b. Shepherd: John 10:11; Heb. 13:20; cf. Psa. 23:1; Isa. 40:11
c. Rock: 1 Cor. 10:4; cf. Isa. 44:8
D. Jesus receives the honors due to God alone
1. Honor: John 5:23
2. Love: Matt. 10:37CRI, P.O. Box 8500, Charlotte, NC 28271 Phone (704) 887-8200 and Fax (704) 887-8299
3. Prayer: John 14:14 (text debated, but in any case it is Jesus who answers the prayer); Acts 7:59-60 (cf. Luke 23:34, 46); Rom. 10:12-13; 1 Cor. 1:2; etc.
4. Worship (proskuneo): Matt. 28:17; Heb. 1:6 (cf. Psa. 97:7); cf. Matt. 4:10
5. Religious or sacred service (latreuo): Rev. 22:13
6. Faith: John 3:16; 14:1; etc.
E. Jesus does the works of God
1. Creation: John 1:3; 1 Cor. 8:6; Col. 1:16-17; Heb. 1:2; Rev. 3:14 (cf. 21:6 on "beginning"); on "through" and "in" cf. Rom. 11:36; Heb. 2:10; Acts 17:28; cf. also Isa. 44:24
2. Sustains the universe: Col. 1:17; Heb. 1:3
3. Salvation: See C.2.a. above.
4. All of them: John 5:17-29
F. Jesus has all of the incommunicable attributes of God
1. All of them: John 1:1; Col. 1:15; 2:9; Heb.1:3
2. Self-existent: John 5:26
3. Unchangeable: Heb. 1:10-12; 13:8
4. Eternal: John 1:1; 8:58; 17:5; Col. 1:17; Heb. 1:2
5. Omnipresent: Matt. 18:20; 28:20; John 3:13; Eph. 1:23; 4:10; Col. 3:11
6. Omniscient: John 16:30
7. Incomprehensible: Matt. 11:25-27
G. Jesus is the Son of God
1. "Son" in Scripture can mean simply one possessing the nature of something, whether literal or figurative (e.g., "Son of man," "sons of thunder," "sons of disobedience," cf. Mark 3:17; Eph. 2:1)
2. Whenever "son of" is used in relation to a person (son of man, son of Abraham, son of David, etc.), the son possesses the nature of his father
3. Jesus is clearly not the literal Son of God, i.e., He was not physically procreated by God
4. On the other hand, Jesus is clearly the Son of God in a unique sense (cf. "only -begotten Son," John 1:14; 3:16, 18; 1 John 4:9) and in a preeminent sense (i.e., the term is mor e fitting for Him than for anyone else)
5. Scripture is explicit that the Son possesses God's essence or nature (cf. F. above)
6. Jesus' repeated claim to be the Son of God was consistently understood by the Jewish leaders as a blasphemous claim to equality with God, an understanding Jesus never denied: John 5:17-23; 8:58-59; 10:30-39; 19:7; Matt. 26:63-65
7. Jesus is therefore God's Son, not God's creation, God's servant, God's agent, etc.; Jesus is God's Son who became a servant for our sake and for the Father's glory (John 13:13-15; 17:4; Phil. 2:6-11; Heb. 1:4-13; 3:1-6; 5:8; etc.)
Robert Bowman Biblical basis of the trinity
end pt2
VI. THE HOLY SPIRIT IS GOD
A. Equated with God: Acts 5:3-4; 2 Cor. 3:17-18
B. Has the incommunicable attributes of God
1. Eternal: Heb. 9:14
2. Omnipresent: Psa. 139:7
3. Omniscient: 1 Cor. 2:10-11
C. Involved in all of the works of God
1. Creation: Gen. 1:2; Psa. 104:30
2. Incarnation: Matt. 1:18, 20; Luke 1:35
3. Resurrection: Rom. 1:4; 8:11
4. Salvation: Rom. 8:1-27
D. Is a person
1. Has a name: Matt. 28:19; note that even though "name" might be used of a nonperson, here, in conjunction with the Father and the Son, it must be used of a person
2. Is the "Helper"
a. Is another Helper: John 14:16, cf. 1 John 2;1; note also that "Helper" (parakletos) was used in Greek always or almost always of persons
b. Is sent in Jesus' name, to teach: John 14:26
c. Will arrive, and then bear witness: John 15:26-27
d. Is sent by Christ to convict of sin, will speak not on his own but on behalf of Christ, will glorify Christ, thus exhibiting humility: John 16:7-14
3. Is the Holy Spirit, in con trast to unholy spirits: Mark 3:22-30, cf. Matt. 12:32; 1 Tim. 4:1; 1 John 3:24-4:6
4. "Impersonal" language used of the Spirit paralleled by language used of other persons
a. The Holy Spirit as fire: Matt 3:11; Luke 3:16; cf. Ex. 3:2-4; Deut. 4;24; 9:3; Heb. 12:29
b. The Holy Spirit poured out: Acts 2:17, 33; cf. Isa. 53:12; Phil. 2:17; 2 Tim. 4:6
c. Being filled with the Holy Spirit: Eph. 5:18, etc.; cf. Eph. 3:17, 19; 4:10
VII. THE FATHER, SON, AND HOLY SPIRIT ARE DISTINCT PERSONS
A. Matt 28:19
1. "the Father and the Son and the Holy Spirit": use of definite article before each personal noun indicates distinct persons unless explicitly stated otherwise; compare Rev. 1:17; 2:8, 26.
2. Jehovah's Witnesses, Armstrongites, etc., argue that "Father" and "Son" are distinct persons but Holy Spirit is not a person at all; Oneness Pentecostals argue that all thre e are different offices or roles of one person. Both views are impossible in view of the grammar.
3. Does singular "name" prove that the three are one person? No; compare Gen. 5:2; 11:4; 48:6; and especially 48:16!
4. "Name" need not be personal name, may be title: Isa. 9:6; Matt. 1:23. If a single personal name is sought, the name shared by all three persons is "Yahweh" or "Jehovah."
B. Acts 2:38 and Matt. 28:19
1. Neither passage specifies that certain words are to be spoken during baptism; nor does the Bible ever record someone saying, "I baptize you in the name of...."
2. Those said to be baptized in the name of Jesus (whether or not the formula "in the name of Jesus" was used) were people already familiar with the God of the OT:
a. Jews: Acts 2:5, 38; 22:16
b. Samaritans: Acts 8:5, 12, 16
c. God-fearing Gentiles: Acts 10:1-2, 22,48
d. Disciples of John the Baptist: Acts 19:1-5
e. The first Christians in Corinth were Jews and God-fearing Gentiles: Acts 18:1-8; 1Cor. 1:13
3. Trinitarian formula for baptism (if that is what Matt. 28:19 is) was given in context of commissioning apostles to take the gospel to "all the nations," including people who did not know of the biblical God.
C. Father and Son are two persons
1. The saluations: Rom. 1:7; 1 Cor. 1:3; 2 Cor. 1:2; Gal. 1:3; Eph. 1:2; 6:23; Phil. 1:2; 1 Thess. 1:1; 2 Thess. 1:1, 2; 1 Tim. 1:1, 2; 2 Tim. 1:2; Tit. 1:4; Phm. 3; James 1:1; 2 Peter 1:2; 2 John 3.
2 . Two witnesses; John 5:31-32; 8:16-18; compare Num. 35:30; Deut. 17:6; 19:15.
3. The Father sent the Son: John 3:17; Gal. 4:4; 1 John 4:10; etc.; compare John 1:6; 17:18; 20:21.
4. The Father and the Son love each other: John 3:35; 14:31; 17:23 -26.
5. The Father speaks to the Son, and the Son speaks to the Father: John 11:41 -42; 12:28; 17:126; etc.
D. Jesus is not God the Father
1. Isa. 9:6. "Father of eternity" means eternal; compare other names formed with word "father":
a. Abialbon, "father of strength" = strong (2 Sam. 23:31)
b. Abiasaph, "father of gathering" = gatherer (Ex. 6:24)
2. John 10:30
a. Jesus did not say, "I am the Father," nor did He say, "the Son and the Father are one person."
b. The first person plural esmen ("are") implies "we," thus two persons.
c. The neuter word for "one" (hen) is used, implying essential unity but not personal unity (compare John 17:21-23).
3. John 5:43
a. Oneness interpretation: Jesus' coming in His Father's name means He was the Father because He had the Father's name.
b. Actual meaning: Others come in their own name (or their own authority), but Jesus does not; Jesus comes in His Father’s name (on His Father's authority).
4. John 14:6-11
a. Jesus and the Father are one being, not one person.
b. Jesus said, "I am in the Father," not, "I am the Father." c. The statement, "the Father is in Me," does not mean Jesus is the Father; compare John 14:20; 17:21-23.
5. Colossians 2:9
a. Oneness argument: The Godhead, which is the entire being of God, is in Jesus; Jesus is not the Godhead.
b. Trinitarian interpretation; "Godhead" means Deity, the state of being God, the nature of God; thus Jesus is fully God, but not the only person who is God. Since Onesess makes "the Godhead" = the Father, they cannot say that Jesus is "not in the Godhead,"
since Jesus is in the Father (John 10:38; 14:10, 11;17:21).
E. The Son existed before His incarnation, even before creation.
1. Prov. 30:4. This is not a predictive prophecy; "prophecy" in 30:1 translates mas sa, which is rendered elsewhere as "burden."
2. The Son created all things: see V.E.1.
3. Jesus was "with" (pros or para) God the Father before creation: John 1:1; 17:5; pros in John 1:1 does not mean "pertaining to," although it does in Hebrews 2:17; 5:1.
4 These statements cannot be dismissed as true in God's foreknowledge.
a. We are all in God's mind before creation; yet such passages as John 1:1 and John 17:5 clearly mean to say something unusual about Christ.
b. To say that all things were created through Christ means He must have existed at creation.
c. No one else in Scripture is ever said to have been with God before creation.
F. Jesus is not the Holy Spirit
1. The Holy Spirit is "another Conforter" (John 14:16; compare 1 John 2:1).
2. Jesus sent the Holy Spirit (John 15:26; 16:7).
3. The Holy Spirit exhibits humility (John 16:13) and seek to glorify Jesus (John 16:14).
4. The Son and the Holy Spirit are distinguished as two persons in Matt. 28:19.
5. The Holy Spirit descended upon Jesus (Luke 3:22).
6. Texts commonly used to prove that Jesus is the Holy Spirit
a. 2 Cor. 3:17 -- the Spirit is here called "Lord" in the sense of being Yahweh or God, not Jesus; note Acts 28:25-27 cf. Isa.6:8-10.
b. 1 Cor. 15:45 -- Jesus is "a life-giving Spirit," not in the sense that He is the Holy Spirit whom He sent at Pentecost, but in the sense that He is the glorified God man; and as God He is Spirit by nature. All three persons of the Trinity are Spirit, though there are
not three divine Spirits; and only one person is designated "the Holy Spirit."
c. Rom. 8:27,34 -- the fact that two persons intercede for us is consistent with the fact that we have two Advocates (John 14:16; 1 John 2:1).
d. John 14:18 -- Jesus here refers to His appearances to the disciples after the resurrection (compare 14:19), not to the coming of the Spirit.
G. The Father is not the Holy Spirit
1. The Father sent the Holy Spirit (John 14:15; 15:26).
2. The Holy Spirit intercedes with the Father for us (Rom. 8:26-27).
3. The Father and the Holy Spirit are distinguished as two persons in Matt. 28:19).
4. Arguments commonly used to prove that the Father is the Holy Spirit.
a. Matt. 1:18; Luke 1:35 -- it is argued that the Holy Spirit is the Father of the incarnate Son of God; this argument ignores the fact that the "conception" is not a product of physical union between a man and a woman!
b. The Father and the Holy Spirit are both said to be active in various activities; the resurrection of Jesus (Gal. 1:1; Rom. 8:11), comforting Christians (2 Cor. 1:3-4; John 14:26), sanctifying Christians (Jude 1; 1 Peter 1L2), etc. The most these facts prove is
that the two work together; they do not prove the two are one person.
VIII. Conclusion: The Bible teaches the Trinity
A. All the elements of the doctrine are taught in Scripture
1. One God
2. The Father is God
3. The Son is God
4. The Holy Spirit is God
5. The Father, Son, and Holy Spirit are three persons
B. The Bible does not forbid using extrabiblical language to define and describe biblical truth.
Robert Bowman the biblical basis of the trinity
.
Logikos
Member
Yeah? Well, guess what. Saying it doesn't make it so!
As do I!
So says you and, so far as I have ever encountered over decades of doing this, ONLY you!
Calvinists are in love with the phrase "hypo-static union". They seem to be looking for any opportunity to use the phrase and the vast majority of those who are even familiar with the phrase are Calvinists. As such, they are by far the largest group of believers that teach that Jesus has two natures but even in that colossal group of people, not a single one of them has ever said to my hearing that Jesus had/has two spirits. YOU are THE ONLY person I've ever encountered that has said any such thing.
Evidence for what?
Well if you do
then you must admit as a man Jesus had to have a human spirit, or you have adopted a christological heresy
All denomination use the term hypostatic Union. Neither I or Civic, who I believe has an op on it are Calvinists
And i presented evidence from Systematic theologies
Here are a couple of Pentecostal references
THE HYPOSTATIC UNION
The hypostatic union is the description of the unity of the divine and human natures in Jesus’ one Person. An adequate understanding of this doctrine is dependent on a complete understanding of each of the two natures and how they constitute the one Person.
The teaching of Scripture about the humanity of Jesus shows us that in the Incarnation He became fully human in every area of life except the actual commission of any sin.
One of the ways we know the completeness of Jesus’ humanity is that the same terms that describe different aspects of humanity also describe Him. For example, the New Testament often uses the Greek word pneuma, “spirit,” to describe the spirit of man, this word is also used of Jesus. And Jesus used it of himself, as on the cross He committed His spirit to His Father and breathed His last breath (Luke 23:46).
Contextually, the word “spirit” (Gk. pneuma) must mean the aspect of human existence that goes on in eternity after death. This point is quite important because it is as a human being that Jesus died. As God the Son, He lives eternally with the Father. In Jesus’ experience of death we see one of the most powerful attestations to the completeness of His humanity. He was so human that He died a criminal’s death.
The Incarnate Jesus also had a human soul. He used the Greek word psuchē to describe the workings of His inner self and emotions in Matthew 26:36–38.
Then Jesus went with his disciples to a place called Gethsemane, and he said to them, “Sit here while I go over there and pray.” He took Peter and the two sons of Zebedee along with him, and he began to be sorrowful and troubled. Then he said to them, “My soul is overwhelmed with sorrow to the point of death. Stay here and keep watch with me.”
Jesus was capable of the depths of human emotion. As we see in the Gospels, He felt pain, sorrow, joy, and hope. This was true because He shared with us the reality of being human souls.
Finally, Jesus had a human body just like ours. Blood ran through His veins as His heart pumped to sustain His human life in His body. This is clearly indicated in Hebrews 2:14–18. In this powerful passage, Jesus’ bodily existence on earth is said to provide the very possibility for our atonement. Because He was flesh and blood, His death could defeat death and bring us to God. Jesus’ body in the Incarnation was just like our bodies. His human body was placed in a tomb after His death (Mark 15:43–47).
Another witness to the completeness of Jesus’ humanity is His participation in ordinary human weakness. Although He was God, He humbled himself, taking on human form. In John 4:6 we find the simple fact that Jesus became weary, as anyone would who traveled a long distance on foot. It is clear from Matthew 4:2 what Jesus was capable of hunger in the normal human way. “After fasting forty days and forty nights, he was hungry.” Jesus also clearly expressed a limitation of His knowledge. Speaking of the time of the Second Coming in Mark 13:32, He says, “ ‘No one knows about that day or hour, not even the angels in heaven, nor the Son, but only the Father.’ ” Certainly this limitation was allowed by himself under the conditions of the Incarnation, but it was a human limitation nevertheless.
The cumulative weight of these Scripture passages should cause us to conclude that Jesus was fully human. He was just like us in every respect but sin. His lowering of himself to servanthood as a man made it possible for Jesus to redeem us from sin and the curse of the Law. The New Testament writers attribute deity to Jesus in several important passages. In John 1:1, Jesus as the Word existed as God himself. It is hard to imagine a clearer assertion of Jesus’ deity. It is based on the language of Genesis 1:1 and places Jesus in the eternal order of existence with the Father.
In John 8:58 we have another powerful witness to Jesus’ deity. Jesus is asserting of himself continuous existence, like that of the Father. “I AM” is the well-known self-revelation of God to Moses at the burning bush (Ex. 3:14). In saying “I am,” Jesus was making available the knowledge of His deity to those who would believe.
Paul also gives us a clear witness to the deity of Jesus: “Your attitude should be the same as that of Christ Jesus: Who, being in very nature God, did not consider equality with God something to be grasped, but made himself nothing, taking the very nature of a servant, being made in human likeness” (Phil. 2:5–7).The Greek uses very strong language here. The participle huparchon is stronger than eimi and is a forceful statement of Christ’s state of existence. The statement hosen morphē theou huparchōn (Phil. 2:6) should be rendered “who, existing in the form of God.” The statement einai isa theo (Phil. 2:6) should be rendered “to be equal with God.” The meaning Paul conveys here is that Jesus was in a state of existence in equality with God. However, He did not grasp, or cling, to this state, but rather released it and became a servant, dying on the cross for us.
When we use all the data of the New Testament on this subject, we realize that Jesus did not stop being God during the Incarnation. Rather, He gave up the independent exercise of the divine attributes. He was still fully Deity in His very being, but He fulfilled what seems to have been a condition of the Incarnation, that His human limitations were real, not artificial.
In spite of these clear scriptural assertions of Jesus’ deity, modern antisupernatural, critical scholarship has been very reluctant to accept the canonical view of Jesus’ deity. Some scholars have claimed to detect a development of Christology in Early Church history, with the deity of the incarnational view standing at the end of a process of apostolic and churchly reflection on Jesus rather than at the beginning and all the way through.
John Knox’s view is representative of a position held by some that Christology moved from a primitive adoptionism to kenoticism to incarnationalism. Primitive adoptionism means that Jesus was taken up to be Son by the Father, without any considerations of preexistence or emptying of Jesus. Kenoticism means, as Paul teaches in Philippians 2, that Jesus emptied himself of His heavenly glory for the purposes of salvation, not necessarily incarnationally. The purported third stage of the development is incarnationalism, where the preexistent Son becomes a man by taking on human flesh70.
C. F. D. Moule says, however, that incarnationalism is present throughout the New Testament, and that Jesus fulfilled His deity by humbling himself. By saying this, Moule reduces the sharpness of the concepts drawn by Knox and others. But it seems appropriate in light of the Synoptic Gospels to observe that Jesus’ deity is present in all the strands of the New Testament, though it is most pronounced in Paul’s and John’s writings.
Clearly the Bible presents ample evidence of the scriptural affirmations of both Jesus’ humanity and deity. It now remains to be established how these two natures can be together in one Person.
The Council of Chalcedon, which convened in AD 451, is usually viewed as a defining moment in the history of Christology. Standing at the culmination of a long line of Christological heresies the council defined the orthodox faith in the Lord Jesus Christ as being focused on His two natures, divine and human, united in His one person.
The Council of Chalcedon has a historical context. The separation of the natures advanced by Nestorius had been repudiated by the Council of Ephesus in AD 431. The blending of the two natures proposed by Eutyches came to be refuted by Chalcedon itself. In this climate of theological controversy, two writings had profound influence over the outcome of Chalcedon. The first was Cyril’s letter to John of Antioch, which says:
Therefore we confess that our Lord Jesus Christ, the only-begotten Son of God, is complete God and complete human being with a rational soul and a body. He was born from the Father before the ages, as to his deity, but at the end of the days the same one was born, for our sake and the sake of our salvation, from Mary the Virgin, as to his humanity. This same one is coessential with the Father, as to his deity, and coessential with us, as to his humanity, for a union of two natures has occurred, as a consequence of which we confess one Christ, one Son, one Lord.
The contribution of this statement to orthodox Christology is the concept that two complete natures were united in the person of the Lord Jesus. The divine was identical with the divinity of the Father. The human was identical with us.
The other writing that heavily influenced Chalcedon was the letter of Leo I to Flavian of Constantinople, which states:
David R. Nichols, “The Lord Jesus Christ,” in Systematic Theology: Revised Edition (ed. Stanley M. Horton; Springfield, MO: Logion Press, 2007), 315–319.
and another
A. God the Father.
We will not enlarge upon the general doctrine of God here, as this has already been covered under the sections on the Existence, Nature, Names, and Attributes of God. We will briefly consider God as Father of our Lord Jesus Christ. The relationship of Father and Son has to do with their self-revelation to us in the context of Redemption. It does not mean that once the Father existed alone and then He begot the Son at a point of time. All the Persons of the Trinity are Coequal and Coeternal. The lexicons give the meaning of the Greek word monogenes as “of the same kind.” The term “only begotten” means that Jesus was not created by the Father, therefore being different from the Father. We are created and adopted sons, therefore of a different nature from the Father. John said of Jesus as the Word: “In the beginning was the Word, and the Word was with God [lit. face to face with], and the Word was God. The same was in the beginning with God [lit. already was]” (Jn. 1:1, 2). In John chapter seventeen, Jesus prayed that He might be glorified with the glory He had with the Father before the world was. Someone asked what God was doing before He created the universe; he was troubled about the idea of an eternally lonely God. But before there was a universe, in the Trinity of God there was love, communication, and purpose (Eph. 1:4, 5; 1 Jn. 4:7, 8). If God were not Triune, the above question could perplex us. But the Three are One in Nature, Will, and Purpose.
B. God the Son.
1. His Virgin Birth.
As found in Matthew 1:20b–25 (NASB):
Joseph, son of David, do not be afraid to take Mary as your wife; for that which has been conceived in her is of the Holy Spirit. And she will bear a son; and you shall call His name Jesus, for it is He who will save His people from their sins. Now all this took place that what was spoken by the Lord through the prophet might be fulfilled, saying, ‘BEHOLD THE VIRGIN SHALL BE WITH CHILD, AND SHALL BEAR A SON, AND THEY SHALL CALL HIS NAME IMMANUEL,’ which translated means, GOD WITH US. And Joseph arose from his sleep, and did as the angel of the Lord commanded him, and took her as his wife, and kept her a virgin until she gave birth to a Son: and he called His name JESUS. (See also Lk. 1:26–38)
Guy P. Duffield and Nathaniel M. Van Cleave, Foundations of Pentecostal Theology (Los Angeles, CA: L.I.F.E. Bible College, 1983), 90–91.
Christ's reference to his spirit'
'
Luke 23:46 (ESV) — 46 Then Jesus, calling out with a loud voice, said, “Father, into your hands I commit my spirit!” And having said this he breathed his last.
Last edited:
Logikos
Member
Jesus Himself said that His God (i.e. the Father) had forsook Him while on the cross. As for the rest, it's semantics. The truth of it depends on just what one means by saying it.
Saying it doesn't make it so.
Do you not ever actually respond to the arguments people make? Is this sort of thing what someone did to convince you of your doctrine? Is this what you consider to be intellectually honesty?
So says you.
Well, someone died a horrible death so that sort of sounds like wrath to me.
No it isn't.
Saying it doesn't make it so.
I am doing no such thing.
Amen!
Amen!
I'm not the biggest fan of how that sentence is stated. It could be more precise. As it is, it seems to imply that righteousness is arbitrarily decided by God, which would render God amoral and, in turn, render the entire question moot.
Christ's death met the demands of justice and thus allowed God to be merciful while remaining righteous. There could be no other motive than justice for having Christ die. If justice need not be met, Jesus need not have died in the first place.
The law has nothing to do with it. The law is just but justice was around long before the law (i.e. the law of Moses).
The penalty for sin is death. That's justice and that's first voiced in Genesis 2.
Jesus' death satisfied that penalty, it's substitutionary nature being first exemplified in Genesis 3 when God shed the blood of animals to make a covering for Adam and Eve.
You see what I'm doing here?
I do not believe my doctrine because there is some book somewhere that teaches something called the Penal Substitution Theory of Atonement.
I believe it because of biblical precepts that are taught right from the very first few pages of the bible and in various ways throughout the scripture. If you want to have any success in convincing me (or probably anyone at all) that I'm wrong, you will have to address the reasons that I believe it.
On the contrary. What I am unwilling to do is accept the label you're trying pin on me. What you want is to paint anyone who believes anything that SOUNDS like PSA with the same brush and start attacking your favorite weak points. So far, nothing you've said comes within a mile of touching anything I believe or have said. If you were willing to debate what I believe and respond to the arguments I make rather than clinging to some obsessive need to indulge your favorite pet peeve then we might actually have a productive discussion.
Except that death is the penalty for sin and Jesus' death stands as the substitute for mine.
I mean, that is the gospel itself, Tom!
He did die for us! Rescuing us from death was the motive for Jesus going to the cross. Jesus traded His life for ours. Jesus being God Himself was able to satisfy the debt by being dead for merely three days, (Three days was more of God's life than was needed to satisfy the debt but it was three days for at least a couple of reasons, including that it was sufficiently long to prove actual death and because the timing was done in such a way as to fulfill prophesy.) and that payment rebounded to the benefit of not only us who, through faith in Him, get to both avoid death and get live with our Creator forever, but also to God who now gets to enjoy the relationships with His creation that He created us for in the first place. The ultimate win win of all time!
The longer this goes, the more I'm convinced that the problem you have with this is semantic in nature.
Maybe it will help if you offered an alternative. If Jesus' death wasn't a substitute for our deaths then what was it?
It seems all you can do is play with semantics! Did you really not understand the point I was making? You'd have to be stupid, which it's clear you're not and so you did get the point but couldn't bring yourself to acknowledge it because that would take away one of your favorite debate points!
The simple fact is that I DO NOT CARE who taught it first with the singular exception of the biblical authors. It makes no difference to me if or for how long a particular doctrine wasn't taught by the church. I don't care whether anyone EVER taught or if they ALWAYS taught it, again, with the singular exception of that which is taught in scripture. I don't care what the Reformers did or didn't do or believe. It makes no difference to me what they got right and what they got wrong. Not that such isn't important but merely that they aren't the authority and neither are they Satan where anything and everything they said was false by virtue of the fact that they said it.
In short, my doctrine, to the very best of my ability and awareness, is based on scripture and sound reason and nothing else. If you want to convince me that I've made an error then you will need to address those issues which you believe to be in error on the basis of scripture and sound reason. This guilt by association fallacy just isn't going to work on me at all. Pretty simple.
Last edited:
