Do our systems of thought teach that Jesus is really the One True God?

[JonC]

This was true with his pre-resurrected state (Jn. 1:1,14). Manifestation of His glory changed with the resurrection but not his deity. His glorified humanity is no different than our resurrected humanity as our human nature does not become deity any more than his glorified humanity becomes deity.

No.

I absolutely agree. Jesus is God. And God fully dwells in Christ. He is immutable. So, from what I understand, Christ set aside His glory for a time, but not His deity (which would be impossible).

 

[JonC]

All three Persons of the Godhead were involved in offering up Christ as the sacrifice. So, in some senses the whole Godhead is typified in the High Priestly work but in different senses. However, only the Father is attributed as the actor with the intent, design and acheiver in providing the sacrificial body (Heb. 10:5-9) and working the circumstances for making the sacrifice actual while the Son performs a role characterized by submission to the will, and providential determination by the Father. He did not nail himself to the cross but submitted to it. Thus, the Son offers himself up by the role of submission. The Holy Spirit enables Jesus to submit to that role. So the Holy Spirit offers Christ up through enabling Christ to submit for that end. However, it is the role of the Father that characterizes the High Priest more so than either the Son or the Holy Spirit because the Father is given the credit for the intent/purpose and working the circumstances that actually acheive it.

Him, being delivered by the determinate counsel and foreknowledge of God, ye have taken, and by wicked hands have crucified and slain: - Acts 2:23

I am not aware of any system that believes that the Father descended into some kind of bodily form and was the actual person condemning Christ to the cross and then actually taking a hammer and nailing Christ to the cross. Pilate was not willing to condemn or crucify him until pressured by the Jews. The Roman Soldiers actually beat him and then nailed his hands to the cross. However, if Acts 2:23 means anything, it means that it was no accident that Christ was slain by such wicked hands but that God purposed it so. "Determinate counsel" cannot possibly mean anything less than the cross or death of Christ was due to purposeful determination by God. John 3:16 and the act of God giving his Son had this purpose in view. Jesus said for that very purpose he had come into the world when his disciples denied that he would go to Jersulem and be crucified. It was not man's purpose that he was fulfilling.

Ro 8:32 He that spared not his own Son, but delivered him up for us all, how shall he not with him also freely give us all things?

1Jo 4:10 Herein is love, not that we loved God, but that he loved us, and sent his Son to be the propitiation for our sins.

2Co 5:21 For he hath made him to be sin for us, who knew no sin; that we might be made the righteousness of God in him.

Lu 15:23 [The Father commanded] And bring hither the fatted calf, and kill it; and let us eat, and be merry:

Isa. 53:10a Yet it pleased the LORD to bruise him; he hath put him to grief: when thou shalt make his soul an offering for sin,

In all the above cases it is the Father that is credited with being the Actor while the Son is credited with being the object of the Father's action. The only sense that the Son can be credited with that action is in a submissive role.

Isaiah 54:10 states clearly that it was the Lord that bruised "him" and it was the Lord that "shalt make his soul an offering for sin". Hence, The Lord is clearly stated to be the antitype of the High Priest that kills, binds and offers up the sacrifice on the altar for the sins of the people. He "sent HIS SON to be the propitiation for our sins" and "HE made him to be a sin" offering for us and "HE spared not HIS SON." It is the Father that is doing this because the one it is being done to is repeatedly called "HIS SON." Of course, HIS SON is a WILLING party to this and so the Son came to do the will of the Father with regard to the cross, and thus offered himself up willingly. But in the eternal purpose of redemption the Father is the one giving HIS SON for that end, the Father is the one that provided the body to be sacrificed and it is the Father giving, and OFFERING up His Son for that end, The Father is the one pleased to bruise him and make his soul an offereing for sin. The Son is willing for this to be done and does not resist.

Hence, the party that provided the sacrificial body and purposed it to be sacrificed and used the hands of wicked men to accomplish that predetermined end typified by the High Priest's action is the Father not the Son, as the Son simply came to do the will of the Father - "I come to do thy will O God." He laid down his own life only in the sense of submission to the revealed will of the Father that he be the sacrificial lamb the Father would give, or would offer up to be the propitiation of our sins. He offered himself only in the sense of submission to the revealed will of the Father Who sent him to be the sacrificial lamb. But it is the Father that determined that end, purposed how it would be accomplished and brought it to pass and who is credited with making that offering or giving His son for that end.

The Father purposed it and brought it to pass. The Son submitted to the Father's will. The Holy Spirit empowered Christ to do it. Hence, all three Persons of the Godhead were actively involved in making this offering, but intent, design and purposeful action in accomplishing this offering is credited to the Father while the Son is characterized in a submissive role in passively allowing himself to be offered. The Holy Spirit's part is enabling Christ to willingly submit to this role as he offered himself up by the power of the Spirit. So, the Father fits the type of the High Priest more than either the Son or the Spirit as the determination, design and accomplishment in bringing about that offering is credited to the Father.

So, all three Persons of the Godhead typify the High Priest in various degrees. The Son was the offerer in the sense of submission, thus offering himself in that characterization. The Holy Spirit was the offerer in the sense of enablement to make the offering. However, it is the Father's role that dominates both roles of the Son and Spirit as the roles of both the Son and Spirit are SUBMISSIVE to the role of the Father who is repeatedly characterized as the One who purposed, provided and acheived making the sacrificial offering actual.

So yes, my view of God is consistent with my view of Christ's Person and the fullness of deity incarnate without confusion of deity with humanity. My view of God is consistent with God's redemptive purposes, roles and provision of full atonement.

I also am not aware of any system that presents the Father as "becoming flesh". I am not sure how that idea even crept into the thread.

The Persons of the Trinity can be seen taking different roles in redemption. But we have to be careful, in my opinion, not to make ontological aspects of God belong to different Persons. God fully exists (all of God, the One Triune God) in each Person of the Trinity. The Father is not only 100% God, but when we speak of the Father we are also speaking of the One True God (in the Person of the Father). That said, we have not been given the Father through which to know God. We have been given the Son (and sent the Spirit as a Helper).

So we can know the One True God through Christ alone. Anything else we claim to know of God is philosophical, not theological.

 

[agedman]

Perhaps this isn’t the thread, but because the atonement has been discussed perhaps this added distinction needs to be inserted.



When discussions on atonement and God in Christ reflect upon the temple folks must keep in mind human aspects.

A short list:

Humans raised the sacrifice.
Humans set aside the sacrifice for a period of time for testing.
Humans inspected and tested the sacrifice daily during that time to judge purity.
Humans pronounced that sacrifice as pure.
Humans inflicted the wound that poured out the blood some collected in a bowl, some not.
Humans placed the animal upon the alter they built.
Humans generated the fire and sustained the fire that consumed the sacrifice.
Humans discarded the unnecessary items of the sacrifice.
Humans lead the procession to deliver the scapegoat to the wilderness.

However, perhaps a sacrifice to what God performed is that of Abraham.

The human lambs had no choice - Isaac was given no choice.

God provided the lamb of His choice, that He raised and kept for that purpose, who secured the lamb that humankind would take the lamb and sacrifice...

The crucifixion better fits the sacrifice Abraham offered, rather than that of the temple.

Unless one keeps in mind that Christ pictured in all aspects as the temple, the furnishings, methods the even the clothing of high priest, the animals.... every aspect was a picture of the work of the Christ.

Perhaps then one might see the Abrahamic sacrifice as a picture of earthy view of the crucifixion, while the temple sacrifice is a picture of that seen from heaven.

A bit off topic, but some may find it a worthy read.

Such does effect how the crucifixion is considered in terms of God’s wrath, and the topic of the op.

 

[JonC]

Perhaps this isn’t the thread, but because the atonement has been discussed perhaps this added distinction needs to be inserted.



When discussions on atonement and God in Christ reflect upon the temple folks must keep in mind human aspects.

A short list:

Humans raised the sacrifice.
Humans set aside the sacrifice for a period of time for testing.
Humans inspected and tested the sacrifice daily during that time to judge purity.
Humans pronounced that sacrifice as pure.
Humans inflicted the wound that poured out the blood some collected in a bowl, some not.
Humans placed the animal upon the alter they built.
Humans generated the fire and sustained the fire that consumed the sacrifice.
Humans discarded the unnecessary items of the sacrifice.
Humans lead the procession to deliver the scapegoat to the wilderness.

However, perhaps a sacrifice to what God performed is that of Abraham.

The human lambs had no choice - Isaac was given no choice.

God provided the lamb of His choice, that He raised and kept for that purpose, who secured the lamb that humankind would take the lamb and sacrifice...

The crucifixion better fits the sacrifice Abraham offered, rather than that of the temple.

Unless one keeps in mind that Christ pictured in all aspects as the temple, the furnishings, methods the even the clothing of high priest, the animals.... every aspect was a picture of the work of the Christ.

Perhaps then one might see the Abrahamic sacrifice as a picture of earthy view of the crucifixion, while the temple sacrifice is a picture of that seen from heaven.

A bit off topic, but some may find it a worthy read.

Such does effect how the crucifixion is considered in terms of God’s wrath, and the topic of the op.

Threads have a tendency to wander a bit, so this is fine.

I find it interesting that God stopped Abraham from killing Isaac. When you look at the account, Isaac became willing. Abraham had faith that God would resurrect Isaac (a faith in God’s righteousness). Abraham did lay Isaac upon the altar. But God, who could have raised Isaac, stopped Abraham short of the act of killing his son. I believe this a foreshadowing of the Father offering His Son.

In terms of the OP, I don't believe we learn anything about God that we do not learn from Christ. The idea that the Father was wrathful to the Son is more than different "roles" between the members of the Trinity. It is different "Gods" forming One (different responses due to different natures). The language is couched in Trinitarian fashion, but in practice the Father and Son exhibit ontological differences.

 

[The Biblicist]

God did not stop Abraham from killing the sacrifice. The change of sacrifice showed substitution and continued life (resurrection). Jesus used the threefold "God" in reference to Abraham, Isaac and Jacob. Why did he just stop with Jacob? He was the God of Joseph, David, ect. He stopped with Jacob because those three were types of the Godhead and the everlasting covenant of redemption. Abraham is called "our Father" while Isaac was his only begotten Son offered up but still continued to live. Jacob beget the 12 tribes (type of all the elect).

 

[The Biblicist]

The Persons of the Trinity can be seen taking different roles in redemption. But we have to be careful, in my opinion, not to make ontological aspects of God belong to different Persons.

Agreed! As to their persons they all equally share what God is or the attributes that make God to be God without being three different Gods. However, the humanity of Christ is not eternal or immutable or does it share any attribute that makes God to be God. At one time there was no humanity (Jn. 1;14)

 

[JonC]

God did not stop Abraham from killing the sacrifice. The change of sacrifice showed substitution and continued life (resurrection). Jesus used the threefold "God" in reference to Abraham, Isaac and Jacob. Why did he just stop with Jacob? He was the God of Joseph, David, ect. He stopped with Jacob because those three were types of the Godhead and the everlasting covenant of redemption. Abraham is called "our Father" while Isaac was his only begotten Son offered up but still continued to live. Jacob beget the 12 tribes (type of all the elect).

Exactly. God stopped Abraham from killing his son (which was the command). From there Abraham offered a typical sacrifice, provided by God, an in accord with the common practice.

 

[The Biblicist]

I find it interesting that God stopped Abraham from killing Isaac.

However, Abraham did kill the offering. The exchange provided the type for substitution and continuation of life a type of resurrection.

Abraham did lay Isaac upon the altar. But God, who could have raised Isaac, stopped Abraham short of the act of killing his son. I believe this a foreshadowing of the Father offering His Son.

So you believe that the Father stopped the sacrificial killing of His Son on the cross in keeping with how you interpret this type?

In terms of the OP, I don't believe we learn anything about God that we do not learn from Christ. The idea that the Father was wrathful to the Son is more than different "roles" between the members of the Trinity. It is different "Gods" forming One (different responses due to different natures). The language is couched in Trinitarian fashion, but in practice the Father and Son exhibit ontological differences.

I find this conclusion very odd! You are confusing deity with the design and role of humanity. "Thou hast prepared a body" for that very end rather than making deity the object of wrath. That does not demand different God's, but it demands a full complete nature in addition to God that serves as the object of wrath against sin and in the place of sinners. Just because God the Son indwelt the human Jesus does not make the humanity deity.

 

[JonC]

Agreed! As to their persons they all equally share what God is or the attributes that make God to be God without being three different Gods. However, the humanity of Christ is not eternal or immutable or does it share any attribute that makes God to be God. At one time there was no humanity (Jn. 1;14)

I agree with your first statement. I think it is an error (not one you hold, but one I see in Reformed Catholic traditions) to think Christ as one third God. They affirm Christ is fully God. But they don't recognize that the fullness of God dwells in Christ.

I disagree, perhaps (correct me if I misunderstood your point) in that I do see in Christ the fullness of God dwelling bodily (not only during Christ's time on earth as one of us, but also now as Christ has a body we will also have in the future). I agree, however, that there was a time when the Word became flesh....so we may not really disagree here - I'm not sure and will defer to your assessment.

 

[The Biblicist]

Exactly. God stopped Abraham from killing his son (which was the command). From there Abraham offered a typical sacrifice, provided by God, an in accord with the common practice.

Sorry, I don't get your point. God did not stop Abraham from killing the sacrifice. The exchange perfectly fit the type as it demonstrated the truth of substitution and continued life (resurrection) but there was no stopping of the type of God (Abraham) from killing the ultimate type of the Son - the substitutionary sacrifice.

 

[The Biblicist]

I agree with your first statement. I think it is an error (not one you hold, but one I see in Reformed Catholic traditions) to think Christ as one third God. They affirm Christ is fully God. But they don't recognize that the fullness of God dwells in Christ.

The "fullness of God" does not mean that Christ is the Father and the Spirit incarnate without distinction of Person! It means that the pleroma or all attributes that make God to be God dwells incarnate. The Son prayed to the Father and spoke to the Father as the Father did the Son and so the Father was not incarnate nor the Spirit. I don't believe that each is a third of God but each is fully God or without division of being.

 

[JonC]

However, Abraham did kill the offering. The exchange provided the type for substitution and continuation of life a type of resurrection.

Yes. God did provide a ram. I guess we have to determine if Isaac symbolizes Christ or if Isaac symbolizes man (and the ram symbolizes Christ). I had never considered that perspective.

\

So you believe that the Father stopped the sacrificial killing of His Son on the cross in keeping with how you interpret this type?

No. I just found the idea interesting. I think that would be twisting the text to prove more than actually intended.

I find this conclusion very odd! You are confusing deity with the design and role of humanity. "Thou hast prepared a body" for that very end rather than making deity the object of wrath. That does not demand different God's, but it demands a full complete nature in addition to God that serves as the object of wrath against sin and in the place of sinners. Just because God the Son indwelt the human Jesus does not make the humanity deity.

I do not believe that we can separate Christ into “humanity” and “deity”. The Word became flesh, I believe, is a specific union or reconciliation of man and God. Jesus is God in the flesh. And all the fullness of God dwelt bodily in Christ.

The “roles”, I believe, are only in terms of the Persons of the Trinity. The Son submitted to the Father. The Father sent the Son. The Father offered the Son. The Son lay down His life in obedience to the Father’s will. The Father and Son sent the Spirit as a Helper.

I think we disagree in that I affirm the One True God actually suffered physically and died a physical, human death for us.

John

 

[JonC]

The "fullness of God" does not mean that Christ is the Father and the Spirit incarnate without distinction of Person! It means that the pleroma or all attributes that make God to be God dwells incarnate. The Son prayed to the Father and spoke to the Father as the Father did the Son and so the Father was not incarnate nor the Spirit. I don't believe that each is a third of God but each is fully God or without division of being.

I agree completely. But it does mean that when we see the Son we see the Father. When we look upon the Son we see the One God, not 1/3 of God.

That is where I believe we have to be careful. Reformed Theology (I'm not saying you) often divorces the Persons of the Trinity from the Whole.

 

[The Biblicist]

In terms of the OP, I don't believe we learn anything about God that we do not learn from Christ.

Agreed!

The idea that the Father was wrathful to the Son is more than different "roles" between the members of the Trinity.

The problem here as I see it, is not just wrong termonology but confusion of humanity with deity. The Father (God) is not wrathful to the Son (God) but he is wrathful toward sin and sinners of which the man Jesus legally stands in their position as humanity in the place of humanity, not deity in the place of humanity. His humanity has a beginning (Jn. 1;14) and is not not deity but "was prepared" for that very sacrificial object of wrath due to legal subtitution.

It is different "Gods" forming One (different responses due to different natures). The language is couched in Trinitarian fashion, but in practice the Father and Son exhibit ontological differences.

Again, I think you are confusing deity with humanity as they are two separate and distinct natures that cannot be combined in so much any distinction is blurred or erased.

 

[The Biblicist]

I do not believe that we can separate Christ into “humanity” and “deity”.

So you believe that deity "grew in wisdom and in knowledge"? You believe that omnipotent deity grew tired and wearied? If they cannot be divided then is that not what you are forced to conclude or else you are forced to make some kind of division.

The Word became flesh, I believe, is a specific union or reconciliation of man and God. Jesus is God in the flesh. And all the fullness of God dwelt bodily in Christ.

So how do you explain the human Jesus sitting down on the "right hand of the Father" if all the Godhead, the fullness is inseparable from the humanity of Christ? Should not he be the one sitting on the throne alone since the "fullness" dwells in that body? There is no issue if the Greek word pleroma refers simply to all attributes that make God to be God are coequally shared by three distinct Persons without division of being. Are you not trying to rationalize a view of God that ultimately ends up to be nothing different than modalism as you ultimately confine deity within the human body of Jesus??

I think we disagree in that I affirm the One True God actually suffered physically and died a physical, human death for us.

John

So, in essence you confine the Father and the Spirit within the incarnate body of Jesus from Nazareth for eternity as the "one true God"???? How do the attributes of eternal and immutable fit with God becoming inseparable from a human nature? Is the preincarnate word the same in nature as the incarnate word? Does deity become flesh in the sense of union of God and humanity as one nature?

 

[Martin Marprelate]

I agree completely. But it does mean that when we see the Son we see the Father. When we look upon the Son we see the One God, not 1/3 of God.

This is where we have to be very, very careful. The Son is true God and 'it pleased that all the fulness should dwell in Him,' but He is not the Father and not the Holy Spirit. This was the point of my post #67.

That is where I believe we have to be careful. Reformed Theology (I'm not saying you) often divorces the Persons of the Trinity from the Whole.

I'm sure that @Biblicist will come back shortly to declare that he does not consider Himself Reformed. But this remark is just one of the careless, unfounded side-swipes to which you are unfortunately prone. The Reformed Confessions, which constitute Reformed Theology are entirely orthodox. If you disagree with them it may possibly say more about you than about them.

 

[JonC]

Agreed!



The problem here as I see it, is not just wrong termonology but confusion of humanity with deity. The Father (God) is not wrathful to the Son (God) but he is wrathful toward sin and sinners of which the man Jesus legally stands in their position as humanity in the place of humanity, not deity in the place of humanity. His humanity has a beginning (Jn. 1;14) and is not not deity but "was prepared" for that very sacrificial object of wrath due to legal subtitution.




Again, I think you are confusing deity with humanity as they are two separate and distinct natures that cannot be combined in so much any distinction is blurred or erased.

I understand. But I think that the differences go much deeper than just the differences between humanity and deity.

Please correct me if I have misunderstood your position - I see you as viewing God punishing sin in Christ (in his flesh, his humanity) but not in His deity. The body is, in a way, “vehicle” for the Divine (please forgive the wording, but I think you get the idea).

I disagree in that I believe Scripture deals with the Word as literally becoming flesh. This was more than a “vehicle”. Jesus hungered. God hungered. Jesus suffered. God suffered. Jesus died a human death. God died a human death. And now God has a resurrected body.

I think that this is part of our disagreement where we will never really see eye to eye.

I do not believe that there are two distinct natures that can be separated so that Jesus could suffer in his humanity without God suffering in his deity (on this point I agree with the Nicene definition, not that it matters). I believe that this was God reconciling the world to himself (mankind is, literally, reconciled to God in or through Christ).

 

[The Biblicist]

I agree completely. But it does mean that when we see the Son we see the Father. When we look upon the Son we see the One God, not 1/3 of God.

I think you are attempting to rationalize what cannot be rationalized. When we see the Son we see the full expression of what makes the Father to be God as the same attributes that make the Father to be God are the very same attributes that make the Son to be God. The God attributes are coequally shared by three Persons without division of substance. However, he did not say I am the Father as there is a division between Persons and not merely as three distinct seats of conscience but also three distinct manifestations of Persons (e.g. at the baptism of Jesus, the throne in heaven, etc.). You are attempting to rationalize the irrational with regard to human mental capacity.

However, your attempt to rationalize distorts the truth of the Godhead in my opinion especially when it comes to the incarnation as your logic leads you to incarnate the Father, and the Spirit with the Son as this is your view of the "fullness of the Godhead BODILY."

Hence, if your view is correct the Son should not be standing before the One on the throne or sitting at his right side but should be on the throne as the entirety of the Godhead is inseparably united to humanity.

 

[JonC]

This is where we have to be very, very careful. The Son is true God and 'it pleased that all the fulness should dwell in Him,' but He is not the Father and not the Holy Spirit. This was the point of my post #67.

Absolutely. And perhaps a part of my disagreement is that in articulating the Cross in terms of penal substitution some have not taken enough care in the past. It is very easy to develop "short-cut" methods to deal with doctrine among like-minded people, only to have this cause confusion when confronted by others who don't hold a view. I've done this several times and am becoming an expert .

I'm sure that @Biblicist will come back shortly to declare that he does not consider Himself Reformed. But this remark is just one of the careless, unfounded side-swipes to which you are unfortunately prone. The Reformed Confessions, which constitute Reformed Theology are entirely orthodox. If you disagree with them it may possibly say more about you than about them.

Yes, I know that @The Biblicist is not Reformed - he and I go way back (or depending on who you ask). That's why I clarified with the comment in parentheses.

 

[The Biblicist]

I understand. But I think that the differences go much deeper than just the differences between humanity and deity.

Please correct me if I have misunderstood your position - I see you as viewing God punishing sin in Christ (in his flesh, his humanity) but not in His deity. The body is, in a way, “vehicle” for the Divine (please forgive the wording, but I think you get the idea).

Let me reword your statement above to more accurately represent my view - "I see you as viewing God punishing sin in MAN but not in Deity. The body is the visible expression of true humanity legally in position of fallen humanity and thus the legal object of wrath against sin and sinners being completely satisfied."

I disagree in that I believe Scripture deals with the Word as literally becoming flesh. This was more than a “vehicle”. Jesus hungered. God hungered. Jesus suffered. God suffered. Jesus died a human death. God died a human death. And now God has a resurrected body.

I am not saying this in ridicule but in how I perceive what must be the case if I follow your logic. So again, your incarnate God is not immutable as was the preincarnate God was omnipotent and omnicient but the incarnate God grows in wisdom and in knowledge and can be impotent, helpless and weak? Did not you say the incarnation was the inseparable union between deity and humanity?