My hat is in the ring when anything comes up about what hangs in the balance of whether Jesus is God or not. Judging from past and present arguments, the inevitable handwriting on the wall, I think, should come to fuition on this thread.

I have my heart in my mouth when revealing presuppositions that I have because people in the past that I've talked to always criticise the apparent close-mindedness. I don't want to cause any high-dudgeon, but the places you can dump your presuppositions and be neutral are niether hide nor hair. Presuppositions are not only inevitable, but necessary. But, I would say, that considering every aspect of your presuppositions hook, line, and sinker; to try to do without them is like trying to go on living with a hole in your ideological head. Ideologically speaking, you just cannot function.

Now arguing about which presupposition corresponds to reality is a horse of a different color. It isn't really that I either argue with a neutral look toward the evidence or not argue because of a presuppositional look at the evidence, but the horns of the dilemma can be split and, with a little horse sense, we can argue from the 'neutral facts' to judge the veracity of our presuppositions. This is what has to be possible if the hope springs eternal toward our aspirations of judging whether Jesus was God or not.

So I invite veterans and Johnny-come-lately(s) to this discussion. Let's dismantle our invory tower of evidence-less christology and and keep our head above the water of arbitrary biases and keep the pot boiling on this all-important question that makes our truth-seeking mouths water.

Glenn Miller, in his Trinity series, compiles a list of data relevant to the deity of Christ:

http://www.christian-thinktank.com/trin01.html

Jesus is God because I said so. :)

This thread belongs in the Christology Section. Please read the announcements before posting.

Howdy Matt,
God Bless you in the name of Jesus Christ, the Son of the Father. Most of my adult Christian life I was rabid unitarian. He is the Son of Living God, and He is Christ. Trouble is 'Son of God' means deity to classic orthodox. Right? Today I love to explore the entire history of our Faith. I respect the creeds of the Church. I respect those reactions to God's revealings in the Christ from the Saints of old. I understand that there is something beautiful and simple in Christ being Son of God and Son of Adam. I really enjoy the 'Definition of Chalcedon. Have you ever seen this? They didn't explain anything they simply hid behind it. And it is amazing, I think. What do you think?

Definition of Chalcedon
(451 AD)
Following, then, the holy fathers, we unite in teaching all men to confess the one and only Son, our Lord Jesus Christ. This selfsame one is perfect both in deity and in humanness; this selfsame one is also actually God and actually man, with a rational soul {meaning human soul} and a body. He is of the same reality as God as far as his deity is concerned and of the same reality as we ourselves as far as his humanness is concerned; thus like us in all respects, sin only excepted. Before time began he was begotten of the Father, in respect of his deity, and now in these "last days," for us and behalf of our salvation, this selfsame one was born of Mary the virgin, who is God-bearer in respect of his humanness.
We also teach that we apprehend this one and only Christ-Son, Lord, only-begotten -- in two natures; and we do this without confusing the two natures, without transmuting one nature into the other, without dividing them into two separate categories, without con- trasting them according to area or function. The distinctiveness of each nature is not nullified by the union. Instead, the "properties" of each nature are conserved and both natures concur in one "person" and in one reality {hypostasis}. They are not divided or cut into two persons, but are together the one and only and only-begotten Word {Logos} of God, the Lord Jesus Christ. Thus have the prophets of old testified; thus the Lord Jesus Christ himself taught us; thus the Symbol of Fathers {the Nicene Creed} has handed down to us.

Since we know this is not a small topic, would you like to share thoughts about this defintion? Have you seen it before?
respectfully,
Carl

bonjour Carl!

That definition is right on the mark as far as I'm concerned. Alot of the usual objections come to grief in that definition: If Jesus is God and the Father is God and the Holy Spirit is God aren't there 3 gods? No, because Chalcedon says, "They are not divided or cut into two persons, but are together the one and only and only-begotten Word {Logos} of God, the Lord Jesus Christ." Of course, we should exlain why the cookie crumbles the way it does through the consummation devoutly to be wished which is the person-being distinction: There are 3 persons (Father, Son, and Holy Spirit), which originate within the realm of one being (God). Perfect.

Also, the accusation of Christ having contradictory natures does not fall on deaf ears. Chalcedon says, "Christ-Son, Lord, only-begotten -- in two natures; and we do this without confusing the two natures, without transmuting one nature into the other, without dividing them into two separate categories, without con- trasting them according to area or function. The distinctiveness of each nature is not nullified by the union." So one doesn't have to fall between the two stools of indecisiveness and fall head over heels for the contention that its all just a mystery, or stand screaming and jumping up and down on a table Contradiction, Contradiction!

Thank for that quote. It kind of gave me a second wind of encouragment. I didn't know that quote existed! But that's only half the battle; the other half is convincing those skeppies out there.:)

matt

You are welcome Matt. Maybe there's more for you at the URL I got that definition from: http://www.creeds.net/index.htm

I enjoy the history of doctrine from J.N.D. Kelly. He explained in a way I could appreciate, HOW the church fathers struggled with Christology. Because he expained some of the 'whys', the 'hows' were more acceptable to me. I'm listening to a Doctor of Doctrine History on my commutes back and forth from Carson. And he doesn't bother to explain why. In fact he looks back at highlights of history (during the evolution of trinity) and points out who was good and who wasn't very good. and that suprised me. coming from a Ph.D and all. Don't you think history just IS and we learn what we can from what happened? Kelly said it took 200 years to come up with the word "triune" and another 100 years to come up with "trinity"...but I know what must come for me: Augustine. My respect for the past won't allow me any opinion of Augustine until I've read enough of the Saint to HAVE a position.

:x

This is from one of my debates on the subject:

This debate is over the thesis, “the New Testament ascribes deity to Jesus Christ.” I will be defending the orthodox* Christian belief of the hypostatic union, which holds that Jesus was fully man and yet, as the second person of the trinity, fully God , along with the Father and the Holy Spirit.

This belief allows for and recognizes that Jesus set aside many of his divine qualities while he was living on earth. This is called functional subordination, and is supported by Philippians 2:6: “who, although He existed in the form of God, did not regard equality with God a thing to be grasped , but emptied Himself, taking the form of a bond-servant, and being made in the likeness of men” (NASB).

Jesus is ontologically equal to God the father, but in his incarnation he voluntarily set aside this equality when he became a man. Thus, this view is entirely in congruence with verses such John 14:28, “the father is greater than I” (NIV), Mark 13:58, “and he did not do many miracles there because of their lack of faith” (NIV), and “no one knows about that day or hour, not even the angels in heaven, nor the Son” (NIV). Jesus the man may have possessed such limitations in greatness, miracle working, and knowledge of the future by virtue of his own voluntary submission, while nevertheless retaining his ontological equality and unity with God. Unitarian objections usually miss this subtle but vital point.

Although ample support for the deity of Christ is found within church history (e.g., the Athanasian Creed), as well as (more importantly) the Old Testament (e.g., Isaiah 9:6, or the “angel of YHWH” throughout Genesis), the resolution of this debate demands that I argue my case from the New Testament.

Even with this limitation, a full case for the deity of Christ cannot be made here. The reason is the evidence for the deity of Christ within the New Testament is so overwhelmingly vast that it simply cannot all be cited within the word limits of this debate. Nevertheless I will try to cite a majority of the clearest texts in support of the deity of Christ in the remaining part of my opener (all translations from ESV unless otherwise denoted).

John 1:1, 18
In the beginning was the Word, and the Word was with God, and the Word (ho logos) was God (theos).

No one has ever seen God; the only God, who is at the Father's side, he has made him known.

These verses are as potent as they are obvious. The “word” (logos) is clearly Jesus (“the word became flesh” [14]), and is seen BOTH as (1) present with the father , and at the father’s side, thus signaling he is a separate person in some sense, AND as (2) being the Father.

The term “logos” is semantically rich (it can be translated, among many others things, “wisdom” or “message”) and in Johannine usage may refer back to the life-giving wisdom that is nearly personified in Jewish wisdom literature. Proverbs 8:22-23, for example, reads, “The LORD possessed me (wisdom) at the beginning of His way, before His works of old. From everlasting I was established, from the beginning, from the earliest times of the earth.” It sounds remarkably like John 1, does it not?

Hebrews 1:3, 8
(The Son) is the radiance of the glory of God and the exact imprint (xarakter) of his nature (hupostaseos) , and he upholds the universe by the word of his power.

But of the Son he says, "Your throne, O God, is forever and ever,
the scepter of uprightness is the scepter of your kingdom.”

Verse 3 (cf. Philippians 2:6) teaches that Jesus is the exact representation of the divine being (what more of an endorsement for deity could you want?) and verse 8, even more forcefully, applies an Old Testament Psalm (45:6-7), which is addressed specifically to YHWH, to the Son. The same is true of verse 10 with Psalm 102.

Acts 20:28
Pay careful attention to yourselves and to all the flock, in which the Holy Spirit has made you overseers, to care for the church of God, which he obtained with his own blood.

Apparently the blood of Jesus is the very blood of God!

Colossians 1:15, 2:9 (NLT)
Christ is the visible image of the invisible God.

For in Christ the fullness of God lives in a human body.

The divinity of Christ in Colossians reads along similar lines as what we have seen in Philippians 2 and Hebrews 1:3: Christ is a human being in whom is the very essence of God (cf. John 12:45, “whoever sees me sees him who sent me”).

John 5:20
And we know that the Son of God has come and has given us understanding, so that we may know him who is true; and we are in him who is true, in his Son Jesus Christ. He is the true God and eternal life.

John, near the close of his letter, almost throws out off-handedly that that the Son of God is the true God. Arguments that take the pronoun houtos to refer not to the closest antecedent Jesus Christ, but rather back to “him who is true” fail not only gramatically but also contextually (“eternal life” is frequently applied to Jesus in Johannine terminology, cf. I John 1:2).

John 8:58
Jesus said to them, "Truly, truly, I say to you, before Abraham was, I am (ego eimi)."

The present verb to be instead of the expected aorist goes back to Exodus 3:14 and implies deity. Christ is not merely claiming to have existed before Abraham: he is claiming to self-originated and autonomous existence. The Jews recognize this claim and pick up stones to blaspheme him in verse 59. Cf. similar “ego eimi” claims in Mark 6:50, John 8:24, etc.

John 10:30
I and the Father are one.

This unity cannot be reduced to unity in a spiritual sense, like marriage is one, as Mormons will insist, because of the context (vv. 28-29, especially, which speak of the unity of the father and son’s roles in preserving the believer) and the Jews response of trying to stone him for blaphemy (33).

John 20:28
Thomas answered him, "My Lord and my God (theos)!"

Jesus does not take this statement as blasphemy, as it would have been if it were not true, but rather commends it as belief in verse 29! Cf. other instances where Christ receives worship in the New Testament: Matthew 2:2, 11, John 9:38, Hebrews 1:6, etc. The Old Testament law made it very clear that only God could be worshipped!

Lastly, twice the New Testament casually refers to Jesus as “our God” in Titus 2:13 and II Peter 1:1, respectively.

Waiting for our blessed hope, the appearing of the glory of our great God and Savior Jesus Christ.

Simeon Peter, a servant and apostle of Jesus Christ, to those who have obtained a faith of equal standing with ours by the righteousness of our God and Savior Jesus Christ.

It is not so much that any single one of these texts irrevocably establishes the deity of Christ in the New Testament, but taken together, their cumulative force is unavoidable exegetically.

Praise to Jesus our great God and Saviour!

*The term “orthodox” denotes that which has been established by Christian tradition through various creeds and statements as distinctive of true Christianity. This is not an argument either way, since the bible is our only source of life and faith, but it is a point that the Christian will want to consider. Walter Martin once noted that a denial of the doctrine of the trinity is the mark of every major cult in church history!

Gavin,
I just finished reading your last post. Thank you. That is a very helpful and succinct collection of points. Not unreasonable, and however I squirm, true as canon. I've come a long way from unitarianism. It began to thaw some for me in the early 1990's when I began for the first time to examine passages that unitarians tend to ignore. They are inspired and need to be appreciated as more speaking from God that we listen to intently. The several that you posted for good example.

That said, accepting what you stated, can you please give me the orthodox handling of this passage from 1 Corinthians 15:28,29?

For the Scriptures say, "God has given him authority over all things." (Of course, when it says "authority over all things," it does not include God himself, who gave Christ his authority.) Then, when he has conquered all things, the Son will present himself to God, so that God, who gave his Son authority over all things, will be utterly supreme over everything everywhere.

If our Saviour is in essense God how can God present Himself to Himself so that HE will be utterly supreme over everything?

respectfully,
Carl

Carl Smuda:
That said, accepting what you stated, can you please give me the orthodox handling of this passage from 1 Corinthians 15:28,29?

29 is the Mormon verse, if I remember correctly, so I'm assuming you mean 27-28.

If our Saviour is in essense God how can God present Himself to Himself so that HE will be utterly supreme over everything?

Christ is Mediator and thus goes in between God and man. After conquering all (on the non-divine side,) He presents all of it to God. This shows that the distinction is purely functional, further proven by this idea about putting things under, which is an action, not a matter of substance. Finally:

I Corinthians xv, 24: "Then cometh the end, when he shall have delivered up the kingdom to God, even the Father; when he shall have put down all rule and all authority and power."

So in this particular text, Paul is identifying with the first person of the blessed Trinity, and this is maintained until verse thirty-one, which identifies Christ as Lord, (which, as we all know, is the New Testament equivalent of the Tetragrammaton.)

Thank you smilax,
that is what I meant. But the next verse is not "the Mormon verse." It is inspired of God. And since we cannot seem to do very well explaining it, the Mormons fill the gap for us and invent a procedure for that American religion.
sincerely,
carl

Carl Smuda:
And since we cannot seem to do very well explaining it, the Mormons fill the gap for us and invent a procedure for that American religion.

Ahh, I apologize for my careless fingers. I've heard that there are at least two hundred different explanations for the meaning behind that verse. All Scripture is equally inspired, but not all Scripture is equally easy to understand.

(Contra the hyper-literalist Unitarians...)

Dear Carl:

And you know that Corinthians passage is very important to me. It is speaking of Christ in His role as the Second Adam completely undoing everything that Adam had lost, and of the Messianic reign and purpose. A beautiful picture of the consummation. Once you view in light of the Messianic role and mission, any unitarian problems disappear IMHO. Unitarians tend to focus on the "delivering up" portion but neglect to stress the fact that Christ had to have something superior to give up in the first place, and that is the place of all preeminence and glory... something no creature could ever hold.

Dee Dee,
It's difficult to follow entirely here. I still ask then, having something superior to give up? I am keeping in mind, and taking note, of your point that unitarians focus too much on the "delivering up" portion. But I'm still not sure what you mean by "the fact that Christ had to have something superior to give up in the first place, and that is the place of all preeminence and glory"? I think I got lost. It still sounds like God is delivering up something greater than God to God?
sincerely,
Carl

That said, accepting what you stated, can you please give me the orthodox handling of this passage from 1 Corinthians 15:28,29?

Sorry, Carl, I just now saw this thread. I will try to give some thoughts if I have a chance, but I thought Smilax handled it well.