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

[kyredneck]

Is this not the truth?

Absolutely! It's a statement of fact, NOT an invitation.

 

[Silverhair]

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.

Is that not just what I said KY?

Do you think taking the verses out of the context changes what they mean?

So we see, via the context, that man has to use his free will to either trust in or reject the truths of God.

 

[kyredneck]

The story in Num 21:4-9

Wonderful type.

And as Moses lifted up the serpent in the wilderness, even so must the Son of man be lifted up; that whosoever believeth may in him have eternal life. Jn 3:14,15

And Jehovah said unto Moses, Make thee a fiery serpent, and set it upon a standard: and it shall come to pass, that every one that is bitten, when he seeth it, shall live. Nu 21:8

The brazen serpent was lifted up for those that were bitten. It is the Spirit working within His children that causes them to feel their need for The Saviour.

...They that are whole have no need of a physician, but they that are sick: I came not to call the righteous, but sinners. Mk 2:17

Blessed are they that hunger and thirst after righteousness: for they shall be filled. Mt 5:6

God has already wrought within those that come to Christ, He's given them the "want-to", whether it's manifested as fear of retribution, or a desire to live, or an inexplicable attraction to Him, it doesn't matter, the Spirit works in many ways within His children. It's AFTER they get to Christ is when they learn the truth about things.

There was a member here that had this signature:

"The Only Thing That Can Stop A Screaming Conscious Is A Right View Of The Atonement".

It's the Spirit working within His children that blesses them to have this 'screaming conscious' that drives them to Christ. Yea, how very 'fortunate' they are:

"Blessed are they that hunger and thirst after righteousness: for they shall be filled."

 

[kyredneck]

Is that not just what I said KY?

Do you think taking the verses out of the context changes what they mean?

So we see, via the context, that man has to use his free will to either trust in or reject the truths of God.

Free will? Where do you see free will?

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.

 

[John of Japan]

Attending church here was the highlight of our trip. It has been awhile since I've experienced such a spirit-filled service.

I wish I could have been there with you! I haven't been back to Japan in 11 years, but Brother S., a former Japanese CEO now called to preach, is planning to have me over to teach in his proposed Bible college, perhaps next year.

 

[Silverhair]

Absolutely! It's a statement of fact, NOT an invitation.

It's both KY. All you had to do was read the next verse:
Joh 3:17 "For God did not send His Son into the world to condemn the world, but that the world through Him might be saved.

You just cannot accept that as a universal invitation as that does not fit with your man-made philosophy.

It is sad really that some on here struggle so hard to deny what the bible clearly tells us.

Mat 11:28 "Come to Me, all you who labor and are heavy laden, and I will give you rest.

Holy Spirit would never offer a call to which He knows you cannot possibly respond. Such a call on His part would be insincere, actually a lie, which since the Holy Spirit is God and God cannot lie [Titus 1:2], makes such a belief or assertion blasphemous.

 

[Silverhair]

Free will? Where do you see free will?

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.

Context KY context.

It is no wonder you have such problems with understanding the word of God, you refuse to actually trust the word of God.

Remember KY it is your philosophy that says God has determined all things so either your version of god has determined that man cannot accept His truths, which would call His character into question, or man actually has the free will with which to either accept or reject those truths.

And by the words that we see in the verse you posted we see "The natural man does not accept the things that come from the Spirit of God." that man has chosen not to accept/receive those truths. That is free will KY.

 

[kyredneck]

It's both KY.

No it's not.

All you had to do was read the next verse:
Joh 3:17 "For God did not send His Son into the world to condemn the world, but that the world through Him might be saved.

??? That too is a statement of fact, not an invitation.

--------------------------------------------

I've got things to do.

 

[kyredneck]

Mat 11:28 "Come to Me, all you who labor and are heavy laden, and I will give you rest.

Matthew Chapter 11

27​	All things have been delivered unto me of my Father: and no one knoweth the Son, save the Father; neither doth any know the Father, save the Son, and he to whomsoever the Son willeth to reveal him.
28​	Come unto me, all ye that labor and are heavy laden, and I will give you rest.
29​	Take my yoke upon you, and learn of me; for I am meek and lowly in heart: and ye shall find rest unto your souls.
30​	For my yoke is easy, and my burden is light.

 

[Silverhair]

Wonderful type.

And as Moses lifted up the serpent in the wilderness, even so must the Son of man be lifted up; that whosoever believeth may in him have eternal life. Jn 3:14,15

And Jehovah said unto Moses, Make thee a fiery serpent, and set it upon a standard: and it shall come to pass, that every one that is bitten, when he seeth it, shall live. Nu 21:8

The brazen serpent was lifted up for those that were bitten. It is the Spirit working within His children that causes them to feel their need for The Saviour.

...They that are whole have no need of a physician, but they that are sick: I came not to call the righteous, but sinners. Mk 2:17

Blessed are they that hunger and thirst after righteousness: for they shall be filled. Mt 5:6

God has already wrought within those that come to Christ, He's given them the "want-to", whether it's manifested as fear of retribution, or a desire to live, or an inexplicable attraction to Him, it doesn't matter, the Spirit works in many ways within His children. It's AFTER they get to Christ is when they learn the truth about things.

There was a member here that had this signature:

"The Only Thing That Can Stop A Screaming Conscious Is A Right View Of The Atonement".

It's the Spirit working within His children that blesses them to have this 'screaming conscious' that drives them to Christ. Yea, how very 'fortunate' they are:

"Blessed are they that hunger and thirst after righteousness: for they shall be filled."

KY you have drank the kool-aid of calvinism.

You have turned the love God on it's head and made the gospel message a lie with your twisted understanding of scripture.

 

[Silverhair]

Matthew Chapter 11

27​	All things have been delivered unto me of my Father: and no one knoweth the Son, save the Father; neither doth any know the Father, save the Son, and he to whomsoever the Son willeth to reveal him.
28​	Come unto me, all ye that labor and are heavy laden, and I will give you rest.
29​	Take my yoke upon you, and learn of me; for I am meek and lowly in heart: and ye shall find rest unto your souls.
30​	For my yoke is easy, and my burden is light.

So what we see is that the Son is the one that chooses to whom He will reveal the Father but to say that He only does that for a select group, your so called elect, runs into a problem in the next verse KY.

He is either calling all to come to Him,via free will, and those that do He will give that rest or He is calling all irresistibly, determinism, which since we are all heavy laden with sin would lead to universalism.

Are you suggesting the universalism is true KY?

 

[JonC]

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?

I don't think we should balance what these men thought but rather "eat the meat and spit out the bones". With Luther, I tend to think he wrote in excess there to make a point. But it was incorrect.

 

[JesusFan]

The Father does not face inability, so your question is not valid.

The basis that mankind is forgiven is Christ's sacrifice.

The basis that we are forgiven repentance - turning from sin and to Christ.

Scripture tells us that the Father forgives based on repentance. This is further explained as turning from ourselves and to Him in faith.

Ultimately our salvation is dependent on recreation (dying to sin and being made alive in Christ, being made a new creation in Christ, being born of the Spirit).


My point, however, was not to debate this but simply to point out that there are many Baotist churches that share my belief. Rather than trusting in reformed Roman Catholic doctrine many of us simply trust God's Word.

You still though failed to show by what basis the Father can declare a sinner a saint, what enables Him to stay Holy and able to declare us now saved?

 

[JesusFan]

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.

You never have addressed though where that wrath of God towards us as Law breakers went, was it just forgotten once He forgave us then?

 

[JesusFan]

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?

And how would that finger prick counter the wrath of God towards all who have sinned?

 

[JesusFan]

I don't think we should balance what these men thought but rather "eat the meat and spit out the bones". With Luther, I tend to think he wrote in excess there to make a point. But it was incorrect.

Think Calvin had a more nuanced biblical viewpoint on this issue

 

[JonC]

You never have addressed though where that wrath of God towards us as Law breakers went, was it just forgotten once He forgave us then?

Yes, I did. Wrath does not go anywhere. Wrath is not a material thing.

I even gave you an example in the form of a question -

You are angry at a friend for being rude to you. Your friend apologizes. You forgive your friend.

Where does your wrath go?


The Bible tells us thar God's wrath is against the wicked. It does not go anywhere, but "on that day" the wicked will suffer God's wrath. So what about those who are made new creations, those who reoent, who died to sin? Where does that wrath go? Nowhere. They are forgiven. God's wrath is never towards the righteous.

 

[JonC]

Think Calvin had a more nuanced biblical viewpoint on this issue

Do I think Calvin more nuanced? No. Luther was much closer to Scripture than Calvin. Calvin's view was purely philosophy.

 

[Aaron]

You are angry at a friend for being rude to you. Your friend apologizes. You forgive your friend.

LOL. Let's make the example fit the actual crime a little better, shall we?

Your drunken, unthankful wife neglects you, your house, sleeps with other men and bears their children, but stabs yours to death.

What would justice be?

Also, an answer to this question would be cool.

 

[Aaron]

About Martin Luther's statement, think of the heresies he was confronting and the violent reactions he faced. He was declared an outlaw and an heretic by an anti-christ church, and had to be hidden away for a year or almost certainly would have been burned. I thnk considering that we'd understand better his direct and seemingly extreme counters to their false worship.

Have you noticed how the Catholics put the word holy or blessed in front of everything? It's the Holy Trinity. The holy eucharist. The Blessed Virgin, etc.

Christ became sin and was made a curse for us on the Cross. If transubstantiation is a thing, and the eucharist magically becomes His actual broken body, then those who take of it are consuming sin and a curse.

Not so holy now, is it?

I'm not saying Luther was thinking about the eucharist in particular, but certainly this was the kind of thing he was confronting all the time.