• Welcome to Baptist Board, a friendly forum to discuss the Baptist Faith in a friendly surrounding.

    Your voice is missing! You will need to register to get access to all the features that our community has to offer.

    We hope to see you as a part of our community soon and God Bless!

Did Jesus cease being God's Son on the Cross?

Silverhair

Silverhair

Well-Known Member
kyredneck said:
Your foolish juvenile claptrap is not the word of God.

Example:



Just what do you imagine that you accomplish with this garbage?

FYI, you're certainly not defeating 'Calvinism'.
Click to expand...
KY I post scripture and you say I am posting claptrap, so it is you that is calling the word of God claptrap.

I will continue to point out the errors I see in calvinism and you would do well to actually check out the historical basis of the particular view.

So I do not have to try to defeat calvinism, it will do that to itself all on it's own.
 
kyredneck

kyredneck

Well-Known Member
Site Supporter
@Silverhair

Rebut this with scripture less your usual claptrap, if you can:

1st Corinthians Chapter 2

14​

Now the natural man receiveth not the things of the Spirit of God: for they are foolishness unto him; and he cannot know them, because they are spiritually judged.
 
C

Charlie24

Well-Known Member
kyredneck said:
ROFL, oh but you do, you're obsessed with it. Just like a handful of others on this board.
Click to expand...

K, you're going to find out soon enough that man was given the free will to choose his own way in the Garden, and it has never ceased.

You will also find out soon enough your rejection of that truth has limited your learning and advancement in the Word of God!
 
I

iwillblessthelord

New Member
JonC said:
Here is what Luther wrote in his commentary on Galatians:

"Without any doubt, the prophets in the Spirit saw that Christ would be the greatest transgressor, assassin, adulterer, thief, rebel, and blasphemer that ever existed on earth. When He was made the sacrifice for the sins of the entire world, He is no longer innocent and without sin, He is no longer the Son of God"
(Luther, Commentary on St. Paul's Epistle to the Galatians (1535), Lecture 20 on Galatians 3:13)
What things in the claim above to you find troubling (wrong)?




For me, Luther's words constitute blasphemy against Jesus.

Jesus never became immoral.
Jesus never ceased being God's Son.

Additionally, the prophets in the Spirit never claimed either to be the case.


Early on Luther articulated what Lutherans call "Vicarious Atonement" (it's Substitution Theory). But it was very simplistic (Jesus died so we may live).

I can't help but to see a caution here not to get carried away by philosophy.


For the record, this is what you lead with on another thread that you closed and now opened again. (It's nice being the Moderator). But that is how Luther got into this conversation. After you made the erroneous claim that Lutherans do not believe penal substitution I posted a video of probably the most popular internet era Lutheran where he explained your error.

Even though I tried to be fair and show that not all Lutherans believe the same thing, you turned around and started some kind of false garbage with me and @Martin Marprelate where you, on your own, without us stating it or endorsing it, assign us a doctrinal position of your choosing, just to slander us. This is the most pathetic thing I have ever seen on this board.


What a disgrace! It's not even fair to the Lutherans. Your views of the atonement sound very similar to some of the modern theories and indeed, when you try to look up someone who agrees with your views you usually end up on a site where their other beliefs include gay acceptance and critical race theory. Time and time again the books, and theologians who supposedly support you are either like that, or it turns out they don't really support your view after all. That is the truth of how the Lutherans got into this discussion.

In addition to that dishonesty, you mentioned me in this thread too, and then closed the thread immediately. You have since gone back and taken out your post closing the thread and the mention of me but you forgot that it is still on my notification - it did not disappear when you did that.
You have lost this silly pursuit of the destruction of penal substitution and now, being out of any rational argument, have resorted to what amounts to weird behavior and slander. Good job.


John the Baptist called Him "the lamb of God, which taketh away the sin of the world." Being the unspotted Lamb of God, Christ was personally innocent. But because He took the sins of the world His sinlessness was defiled with the sinfulness of the world. Whatever sins I, you, all of us have committed or shall commit, they are Christ's sins as if He had committed them Himself. Our sins have to be Christ's sins or we shall perish forever.

What I pasted there is a couple of paragraphs down from the partial quote you gave from Luther's commentary. If you read the whole thing he explains what he meant by the part you quoted and why he said it like that. It makes sense when you read the whole thing. Once again, I have never seen anything like what is being done here.

Personally I believe Luther added to Penal Substitution Theory in his philosophy of the Atonement.

I held and taught Penal Substitution Theory for a long time, but I never thought that Jesus ceased being the Son of God.

The reason I posted Luther's comments from his commentary on Galations 3:13 is that @Martin Marprelate said to read it because it proved Luther firmly held the Theory.

Think about many of those theologians who hold my belief of Christ's work. How did you dismiss them? You pointed out other issues that I do not believe. Boyd, for example, holds my belief that Scripture states what occurred on the Cross. But he holds open theology in regard to omniscience (something I disagree with).

So why should I not link Luther to your belief when you provided Luther, and you and @Martin Marprelate posted that was Penal Substitution Theory?

If I was wrong then I apologize (to you, @Martin Marprelate needs to explain why Luther's statement is not Penal Substitution Theory).



Do you believe that the doctrine Jesus ceased being the Son of God is heresy or do you believe it is true?
Click to expand...

Hey there, I’ve been following this thread, and it’s clear there’s a lot of passion around this topic. I appreciate how deeply everyone cares about getting theology right—it’s a reflection of wanting to honor God and understand His truth. Let me offer some thoughts as someone who’s spent time studying Christian history and thinking about the human side of faith.

The quote from Luther’s Galatians commentary is definitely a tough one to wrestle with. It’s shocking at first glance, especially the part about Jesus no longer being the Son of God. I get why it raises red flags—it sounds like it’s stripping away Christ’s divinity, which is a core piece of Christian belief. But reading the fuller context, it seems Luther was trying to drive home the weight of what Jesus took on at the cross. He’s emphasizing how completely Jesus bore our sins, to the point where, in that moment, He carried the guilt of the world’s worst offenses. Luther’s language is intense, maybe even reckless by today’s standards, but I think he’s trying to paint a vivid picture of the cross, not literally deny Jesus’ identity as God’s Son.

The trouble is, Luther’s phrasing can come off as overstepping what Scripture says. The Bible calls Jesus the spotless Lamb (John 1:29), and nowhere does it suggest He ceased being divine, even when bearing our sins. The idea that He became a “transgressor” or “blasphemer” in a literal sense doesn’t line up with passages like Hebrews 4:15, which says He was without sin. Luther’s point about vicarious atonement—that Jesus took our place—is solid and biblical (2 Corinthians 5:21), but the way he expresses it here risks confusion. Some Lutheran theologians, as you mentioned, have admitted this wasn’t his strongest moment, and I’d agree. He was a fiery communicator, sometimes letting hyperbole get ahead of precision.

On the broader point, I don’t think Luther was teaching a doctrine that Jesus stopped being the Son of God as a formal belief. He was likely using dramatic rhetoric to make the atonement personal and real for his readers. Still, it’s fair to call this problematic because it can mislead folks if taken out of context. I’d lean toward saying it’s not heresy in the sense of denying Christ’s divinity outright, but it’s an unbiblical overstatement that needs correcting. We see Jesus’ sonship affirmed even in His death and resurrection (Romans 1:4).

As for the debate about penal substitution, it’s worth remembering that Luther’s focus was more on justification by faith than on nailing down every detail of the atonement (Romans 3:28). He wasn’t perfect, and we don’t need to treat him as such. God used him powerfully, but he was still a man wrestling with big ideas in a turbulent time. The caution here, as you pointed out, is not to let philosophy or human reasoning overshadow what Scripture clearly teaches (Colossians 2:8).

To the question of whether Jesus ceasing to be the Son of God is heresy, I’d say any teaching that denies His eternal divinity is off-base and dangerous (John 1:1). But in Luther’s case, I don’t think that was his intent. He was trying to highlight the depth of Christ’s sacrifice, not rewrite who Jesus is. The real issue is when we let any theologian’s words, even Luther’s, carry more weight than the Bible itself (2 Timothy 3:16).

This discussion reminds us to stay grounded in Scripture while being gracious with each other’s missteps. Luther’s heart was in the right place, but his words here missed the mark. Let’s keep pointing each other back to the cross and the clear truth of who Jesus is—fully God, fully man, always the Son (Hebrews 13:8). What do you all think about balancing respect for historical figures like Luther with staying true to biblical clarity?
 
Aaron

Aaron

Member
Site Supporter
JonC said:
Ahhh....yes, I agree. We don't.

I thought you were just saying that Christ's blood was shed for the remission of sins, and that without the shedding of blood there is no forgiveness (that it is in this way forgiveness is based on the blood Chriat shed for our sins).

Thank you for clarifying. While I do agree that Christ's blood was shed for our forgiveness and that Christ as the "last Adam" satisfied the demands of the Law on behalf of "the human family", I do not believe Calvinistic "atonement" is biblical.

So we dont agree at all.

Now, if you'd put an Atlanta Braves hat on your profile picture that'd be appreciated.
Click to expand...
What is meant by the shedding if blood? Are you saying Jesus could have simply pricked His finger and dropped some blood on the Mercy Seat, that sins would have been forgiven?
 
kyredneck

kyredneck

Well-Known Member
Site Supporter
Charlie24 said:
K, you're going to find out soon enough that man was given the free will to choose his own way in the Garden, and it has never ceased.

You will also find out soon enough your rejection of that truth has limited your learning and advancement in the Word of God!
Click to expand...

Charlie, I'm coming to seriously doubt that you will ever "find out" more truth of scripture.

You've a short memory.
 
Silverhair

Silverhair

Well-Known Member
kyredneck said:
I can't see your scripture for your claptrap. Post substance without the garbage, dishonest untrue garbage is what it is.
Click to expand...

What claptrap KY. Quote the words.

What I post must really hit you as the truth and it exposes the errors that you do not want to see.

You know that calvinism is based on pagan philosophy as it is historical fact and that really bugs you. Putting your head in the sand will not make that truth go away.

Joh_8:45 But because I speak the truth, you do not believe Me!
 
P

percho

Well-Known Member
Site Supporter
JonC said:
I still say it is Christ Himself. The "blood shed" is the action, but it is His willing sacrifice.

Perhaps we are saying the same thing differently. I dont know.
Click to expand...

What did the blood of Christ do for Christ? Was it not, life of, that is soul being? Lev 17:11

Does the resurrected Christ, require blood, for the same purpose as the answer to the above?

Christ, was put to death to the flesh
Christ, was made alive, quickened to the Spirit 1 Peter 3:18

for one is God, one also is mediator of God and of men, the man Christ Jesus, 1 Tim 2:5

Maybe the question of the thread should be, Did Jesus cease being a man on or after the cross?
 
kyredneck

kyredneck

Well-Known Member
Site Supporter
@Silverhair:

"What claptrap KY. Quote the words.

What I post must really hit you as the truth and it exposes the errors that you do not want to see.

You know that calvinism is based on pagan philosophy as it is historical fact and that really bugs you. Putting your head in the sand will not make that truth go away.

Joh_8:45 But because I speak the truth, you do not believe Me!"

Eliminate the useless claptrap and finally uncover a passage of scripture! Never mind that I have no idea what your point is, you're definitely not Christ.
 
Silverhair

Silverhair

Well-Known Member
kyredneck said:
@Silverhair

Rebut this with scripture less your usual claptrap, if you can:

1st Corinthians Chapter 2

14​

Now the natural man receiveth not the things of the Spirit of God: for they are foolishness unto him; and he cannot know them, because they are spiritually judged.
Click to expand...

Two things KY. First I do not have to rebut what it says as it is scripture and second if you read things in context then you would understand what Paul was saying.

Wisdom from the Spirit
1Co 2:6 Among the mature, however, we speak a message of wisdom—but not the wisdom of this age or of the rulers of this age, who are coming to nothing.
1Co 2:7 No, we speak of the mysterious and hidden wisdom of God, which He destined for our glory before time began.
1Co 2:8 None of the rulers of this age understood it. For if they had, they would not have crucified the Lord of glory.
1Co 2:9 Rather, as it is written: “No eye has seen, no ear has heard, no heart has imagined, what God has prepared for those who love Him.”
1Co 2:10 But God has revealed it to us by the Spirit. The Spirit searches all things, even the deep things of God.
1Co 2:11 For who among men knows the thoughts of man except his own spirit within him? So too, no one knows the thoughts of God except the Spirit of God.
1Co 2:12 We have not received the spirit of the world, but the Spirit who is from God, that we may understand what God has freely given us.
1Co 2:13 And this is what we speak, not in words taught us by human wisdom, but in words taught by the Spirit, expressing spiritual truths in spiritual words.
1Co 2:14 The natural man does not accept the things that come from the Spirit of God. For they are foolishness to him, and he cannot understand them, because they are spiritually discerned.
1Co 2:15 The spiritual man judges all things, but he himself is not subject to anyone’s judgment.
1Co 2:16 “For who has known the mind of the Lord, so as to instruct Him?” But we have the mind of Christ.

So the context shows you a biblical truth that you continue to ignore as you pull verses out of context. So we see that the natural man, the one that rejects God, does not understand the deeper things that have been revealed to us who have trusted in Christ Jesus.
 
Silverhair

Silverhair

Well-Known Member
kyredneck said:
ROFL, oh but you do, you're obsessed with it. Just like a handful of others on this board.
Click to expand...

Pointing out the obvious errors that some fellow Christians have fallen into is the responsibility of Christians.

Jas 5:19 My brethren, if any among you strays from the truth and one turns him back,
Jas 5:20 let him know that he who turns a sinner from the error of his way will save his soul from death and will cover a multitude of sins.
 
Silverhair

Silverhair

Well-Known Member
kyredneck said:
@Silverhair:

"What claptrap KY. Quote the words.

What I post must really hit you as the truth and it exposes the errors that you do not want to see.

You know that calvinism is based on pagan philosophy as it is historical fact and that really bugs you. Putting your head in the sand will not make that truth go away.

Joh_8:45 But because I speak the truth, you do not believe Me!"

Eliminate the useless claptrap and finally uncover a passage of scripture! Never mind that I have no idea what your point is, you're definitely not Christ.
Click to expand...

Calling what I post claptrap does not make it so any more than calling the TULIP/DoG the gospel make it so.

I post scripture you call it claptrap, I post historical fact and you call it claptrap. So what it seems is that anything you disagree with is claptrap to you.

But you will accept proven pagan philosophy as truth. You have some serious problems there KY.
 
Silverhair

Silverhair

Well-Known Member
@kyredneck

Is this not the truth?

The Gospel
For
God so loved the world, that He gave His
Only begotten
Son, that whoever believes in Him shall not
Perish, but have
Eternal
Life.

As it says in Isa 45:22 "Look to Me, and be saved, all you ends of the earth! For I am God, and there is no other."
We might be willing to do a hundred things to earn our salvation, but God commands us to only trust in Him - to look to Him.

The story in Num 21:4-9 was certainly familiar to Nicodemus. It is a story of sin, for the nation rebelled against God and had to be punished. God sent fiery serpents that bit the people so that many died. It is also a story of grace, for Moses interceded for the people and God provided a remedy.
So it is for humanity, we have all sinned and are in need of a savior, Christ Jesus. As then it is a matter of faith: when the people look by faith, they are saved.
 
kyredneck

kyredneck

Well-Known Member
Site Supporter
Born of the Spirit:

1 Corinthians 2:12
But we received, not the spirit of the world, but the spirit which is from God; that we might know the things that were freely given to us of God.

NOT born of the Spirit:

1` Corinthians 2:14
Now the natural man receiveth not the things of the Spirit of God: for they are foolishness unto him; and he cannot know them, because they are spiritually discerned.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Top