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

[JonC]

How would you explain the fact that Jesus is our advocate with the Father (I John 2:1).

You also have "this is My Son, in Whom I am well pleased".

I think that it goes back to 2 Corinthians 5:19. Christ is our Advocate and Mediator with the Father. It is in Him that the world is reconciled to God. God became man. And this "God-man" is our Representative.

If it helps, pastor Bob, I do not deny the Persons of the Trinity. But I do deny that each or any Person of the Trinity is less than the fullness of God. It is not that all Three, combined, equal One true God. Jesus is the One True God. So are the Father and Spirit. But we can only know God through Jesus as it is in Him God has reveled Himself to man and reconciled the world to Himself.

 

[Pastor_Bob]

You also have "this is My Son, in Whom I am well pleased".

I think that it goes back to 2 Corinthians 5:19. Christ is our Advocate and Mediator with the Father. It is in Him that the world is reconciled to God. God became man. And this "God-man" is our Representative.

If it helps, pastor Bob, I do not deny the Persons of the Trinity. But I do deny that each or any Person of the Trinity is less than the fullness of God. It is not that all Three, combined, equal One true God. Jesus is the One True God. So are the Father and Spirit. But we can only know God through Jesus as it is in Him God has reveled Himself to man and reconciled the world to Himself.

I certainly do not disagree with that at all. My point was that, though the Father and the Son are indeed one God, there are certain aspects of their nature that are manifested differently in each. Jesus, being our Advocate, does not demand the same degree of justice regarding our sins as God the Father demands. He, rather, pleads for mercy on our behalf. One God, three Persons, all expressly and uniquely God.

 

[JonC]

I certainly do not disagree with that at all. My point was that, though the Father and the Son are indeed one God, there are certain aspects of their nature that are manifested differently in each. Jesus, being our Advocate, does not demand the same degree of justice regarding our sins as God the Father demands. He, rather, pleads for mercy on our behalf. One God, three Persons, all expressly and uniquely God.

I prefer to think of it as different "roles". I am not sure that I can agree that there are certain aspects of their nature that are manifested differently, but this could very well be a misunderstanding on my part of your meaning.

I do not believe there is any ontological difference in the nature of God between the Father and Son. I do not believe that the Word set aside any part of the divine nature, but rather set aside that glory. That said, this glory was Christ's to set aside. And He was once again glorified.

To illustrate (knowing there is always weaknesses in illustrations so please don't be too harsh...I'm just trying to explain): I can turn down the volume of my favorite song to accommodate my wife (we don't share the same taste in music) without changing the song.

I believe we see the fullness of God in Christ. AND I believe we cannot know about God except through Him. This is why I consider Penal Substitution Theory humanistic philosophy rather than Christian thought. I believe the method finds its basis in a humanistic theory of justice assumed as divine justice and imposed upon Christ. I believe any theology has to start with Christ as God's full revelation of Himself.

 

[37818]

We all agree that Jesus is God, but at the same time it seems that we sometimes deal with Jesus as divorced from God. Sometimes it appears that we substitute “the Father” for “God” (both in the Old Testament testimony about God and the New Testament work of God). What I am looking at is a dichotomy and what I am wondering is whether it is forced or natural to the biblical text.

In Romans Paul looks back and explains that the wrath of God is revealed from heaven against all ungodliness. Often it seems some would change the passage to read the wrath of the Father. Does Jesus have this same wrath?

Paul also speaks of the day of wrath and God’s righteous judgment being exercised on the wicked. Is this Jesus’ judgment?

John speaks of God’s wrath being poured full strength into the cup of his anger. Is this cup of anger descriptive of Jesus?

Habakkuk appeals to God’s nature by saying he has eyes that “are too pure to look on evil”. Does Jesus have eyes that “are too pure to look on evil”?

Conversely, is what we know of Jesus’ nature true of God? Is it true of the Father’s nature?

It should be noted that God gave the judgement to His Son, ". . . For the Father judgeth no man, but hath committed all judgment unto the Son. . . ." -- John 5:22.

 

[Martin Marprelate]

Where we may disagree is that I do not believe that Scripture presents Jesus as having the same kind of wrath, love, etc. as God (or as the Father), but instead that the exact wrath, love, etc. spoken of in scripture belongs to Christ.

Where in my post did I claim that the Lord Jesus has the same kind of wrath, love etc. as God (or the father)? I don't recall having used the word in post #3. Are you thinking of another post of mine?

 

[JonC]

Where in my post did I claim that the Lord Jesus has the same kind of wrath, love etc. as God (or the father)? I don't recall having used the word in post #3. Are you thinking of another post of mine?

You didn't. That is where we may disagree. I am claiming that (not implying you do).

 

[JonC]

It should be noted that God gave the judgement to His Son, ". . . For the Father judgeth no man, but hath committed all judgment unto the Son. . . ." -- John 5:22.

This is very important- more than should be noted but has to be noted. The righteousness is Gods, the judgment is Gods. But judgment it self has been given to Christ. And we call God as Father, who judges all men impartially (1 Peter).

 

[Martin Marprelate]

You didn't. That is where we may disagree. I am claiming that (not implying you do).

We do not disagree. Any disagreement, or shade of disagreement, among the Persons of the Trinity is impossible. But that did not prevent the Lord Jesus from being horrified as He anticipated what He was about to undergo upon the cross.

 

[JonC]

We do not disagree. Any disagreement, or shade of disagreement, among the Persons of the Trinity is impossible. But that did not prevent the Lord Jesus from being horrified as He anticipated what He was about to undergo upon the cross.

I agree (as evidenced by the sweat drops of blood in the garden).

My only objection here is that it appears (probably by my own understanding) that what is often presented is God having to satisfy the demands of his justice by the Father pouring his wrath upon the Son (while affirming that this is essentially God taking the punishment upon himself). The problem here is that it takes a standpoint of the Father (a standpoint from which man has no basis to argue). Scripture, in fact, does not take this stance in terms of the Atonement (the closest we come to is God laying our iniquities upon Him and making Him "sin").

From my experience (perhaps not here) there is sometimes a tendency to think in terms of the Father reconciling the world to Himself through Christ. The thinking is simply wrong. (I'm not suggesting these are your beliefs, but trying to explain how I understand what was presented here and why I am so cautious).

 

[Martin Marprelate]

I agree (as evidenced by the sweat drops of blood in the garden).

My only objection here is that it appears (probably by my own understanding) that what is often presented is God having to satisfy the demands of his justice by the Father pouring his wrath upon the Son (while affirming that this is essentially God taking the punishment upon himself).

Once again, we must affirm that the God the Father is pouring out His wrath against sin upon the God the Son, and yes, we must affirm that it is essentially God taking the punishment Himself for mankind's sins. But the Father feels no wrath against the Son, and the Son feels no resentment against the Father.

The problem here is that it takes a standpoint of the Father (a standpoint from which man has no basis to argue).

Not sure what you mean by this.

Scripture, in fact, does not take this stance in terms of the Atonement (the closest we come to is God laying our iniquities upon Him and making Him "sin").

We certainly come a whole lot closer than that. Isaiah 53:5; Galatians 3:10-14 (Christ takes the very curse of God against sin and bears it); 1 Peter 2:24, not to mention the various O.T. sacrifices. But we've been here before (many times).

From my experience (perhaps not here) there is sometimes a tendency to think in terms of the Father reconciling the world to Himself through Christ. The thinking is simply wrong. (I'm not suggesting these are your beliefs, but trying to explain how I understand what was presented here and why I am so cautious).

No. God was in Christ reconciling the world to Himself. But to do that the sinless Christ was made sin and bore those sins upon that awful cross. We can look at those verses in greater depth if you wish.

 

[Yeshua1]

No. I am not. I am speaking of God's nature. If God has to have his wrath appeased based on his holiness then Jesus (if Jesus is God) would also have his wrath appeased.

A role is different. Jesus set aside glory but this does not make him ontologically different from God. His nature is the same.

Jesus wrath is reserved for those who reject Him as their Messiah. while God the father is the One to whom Jesus paid the sin debt to for our sakes!

 

[Yeshua1]

I agree that we have to be careful not to play “good cop - bad cop” (and this has been done in the past).

When we look at the intersection between God and man in the Old Testament I believe we are looking at activities of God’s Word (i.e., the Word….or Son….pre-incarnate).

The reason I believe this are several.

First (and perhaps foremost) Creation was created through and for the Word. Through the Word nothing exists. Nothing has being. The world was created by and for Jesus.

Second, we learn in the New Testament that one can only know the Father through the Son. This is not that the Son is somehow a mode to get to the Father but rather that the Son is an “exact representation of the Father” and that in him the fullness of God dwells bodily. I believe that there is an immutability of God. The God of the Old Testament is the exact same God revealed in Christ.

Third, I believe that in Christ we have the complete revelation of God Himself. There is nothing that can be known of God that is not revealed in Christ. When we see Jesus we see all there is to see of God. We are, however, limited by our human condition. We cannot know all there is to know of God, but that does not mean all that can be known has not been revealed.

So when I read God described in the Old Testament I can be assured that this is descriptive of the Son. In Exodus I believe that it was God who we see in the Logos that is compassionate and gracious, slow to anger and abounding in loving kindness. And I believe it is God who is revealed in the Word who will by no means leave the guilty unpunished.

I do not see the passage as speaking about the Father any more than about the Son in that action (in that interaction with Moses).

Where we may disagree is that I do not believe that Scripture presents Jesus as having the same kind of wrath, love, etc. as God (or as the Father), but instead that the exact wrath, love, etc. spoken of in scripture belongs to Christ.

To use your illustration, I don’t believe we are looking at two “cops” but One God. I see Moses as speaking of the God who is revealed in Christ.

(Sorry for the length, and I hope it helps understand my position).

Jesus did NOT pay the due sin debt offering to Himself, but to God the Father!

 

[Yeshua1]

I agree (as evidenced by the sweat drops of blood in the garden).

My only objection here is that it appears (probably by my own understanding) that what is often presented is God having to satisfy the demands of his justice by the Father pouring his wrath upon the Son (while affirming that this is essentially God taking the punishment upon himself). The problem here is that it takes a standpoint of the Father (a standpoint from which man has no basis to argue). Scripture, in fact, does not take this stance in terms of the Atonement (the closest we come to is God laying our iniquities upon Him and making Him "sin").

From my experience (perhaps not here) there is sometimes a tendency to think in terms of the Father reconciling the world to Himself through Christ. The thinking is simply wrong. (I'm not suggesting these are your beliefs, but trying to explain how I understand what was presented here and why I am so cautious).

Even though the Bible states that God the father did reconcile back to himself lost sinners that were saved by the death of Jesus?

 

[Yeshua1]

Once again, we must affirm that the God the Father is pouring out His wrath against sin upon the God the Son, and yes, we must affirm that it is essentially God taking the punishment Himself for mankind's sins. But the Father feels no wrath against the Son, and the Son feels no resentment against the Father. Not sure what you mean by this.
We certainly come a whole lot closer than that. Isaiah 53:5; Galatians 3:10-14 (Christ takes the very curse of God against sin and bears it); 1 Peter 2:24, not to mention the various O.T. sacrifices. But we've been here before (many times).
No. God was in Christ reconciling the world to Himself. But to do that the sinless Christ was made sin and bore those sins upon that awful cross. We can look at those verses in greater depth if you wish.

Jesus is the Mediator between the father and us, between himself and us, and Jesus paid for the sin and appeased the divine wrath of the father and not for His own wrath!

 

[Yeshua1]

You also have "this is My Son, in Whom I am well pleased".

I think that it goes back to 2 Corinthians 5:19. Christ is our Advocate and Mediator with the Father. It is in Him that the world is reconciled to God. God became man. And this "God-man" is our Representative.

If it helps, pastor Bob, I do not deny the Persons of the Trinity. But I do deny that each or any Person of the Trinity is less than the fullness of God. It is not that all Three, combined, equal One true God. Jesus is the One True God. So are the Father and Spirit. But we can only know God through Jesus as it is in Him God has reveled Himself to man and reconciled the world to Himself.

jesus died to reconcile us back to God the father, and not to Himself!

 

[robycop3]

I believe "oneness", modalism, etc. is completely false.
Why?
Because Jesus said "My Father is greater than I" , prayed, and He, the Holy Spirit, and Yahweh His Father were all manifest physically separate from one another at Jesus' baptism.

In several Scriptures that say " GOD did this or that", I'm not concerned whether the actual doer was Father, Son, or Holy Spirit, as all are God.

But Scripture teaches the OPPOSITE of "oneness", which is man-made & false.

 

[JonC]

Jesus did NOT pay the due sin debt offering to Himself, but to God the Father!

I understand what you are saying, Y1. What you have to ask yourself is whether you affirm or deny that Jesus is the "One True God".

 

[JonC]

I believe "oneness", modalism, etc. is completely false.
Why?
Because Jesus said "My Father is greater than I" , prayed, and He, the Holy Spirit, and Yahweh His Father were all manifest physically separate from one another at Jesus' baptism.

In several Scriptures that say " GOD did this or that", I'm not concerned whether the actual doer was Father, Son, or Holy Spirit, as all are God.

But Scripture teaches the OPPOSITE of "oneness", which is man-made & false.

I agree....depending on how one views "oneness". What I am suggesting is that the Father and Son are One (John 10:30) and that to know Jesus is to know the Father (John 8:19; John 14:7). I am not suggesting that there does not exist a distinctness between the Father, Son, and Spirit. I am, however, suggesting that the Father is completely God, as is the Spirit and Son.

And you are right that typically Scripture (especially the Old Testament) speaks of "God". I believe that the New Testaments at least suggests that the Old Testament is about Christ, and that it is through Christ creation was made, sustained, and it was for Him it exists. I also believe that the New Testament teaches that Christ is the Logos incarnate. And that the Logos is God, and that God dwells fully in Christ.

More importantly, I believe that Scripture as a whole demonstrate that God cannot be known apart from His revelation AND that the only way for man to know God is through Christ. I believe this also includes possessing a knowledge about God (refer again to the Logos and Creation). But sometimes theology tries to take a "back door" and learn about the Father apart from what is revealed through the Son.

And even more importantly than that - the fullness of God dwellt bodily in Christ. The verse does not say that Jesus is fully God (although he is). The verse is much larger than that. The fullness of God is in Christ.

 

[JonC]

Even though the Bible states that God the father did reconcile back to himself lost sinners that were saved by the death of Jesus?

The Bible does not state that at all.

The Bible states that in Christ God was reconciling the world to himself. Do you see how you altered the verse to suit a predetermined meaning?

@robycop3 made a good observation. Check out what he said.

 

[Yeshua1]

I believe "oneness", modalism, etc. is completely false.
Why?
Because Jesus said "My Father is greater than I" , prayed, and He, the Holy Spirit, and Yahweh His Father were all manifest physically separate from one another at Jesus' baptism.

In several Scriptures that say " GOD did this or that", I'm not concerned whether the actual doer was Father, Son, or Holy Spirit, as all are God.

But Scripture teaches the OPPOSITE of "oneness", which is man-made & false.

Yes, but there is also a difference in what each One of the trinity activities are, as its the Sin debt owed to God the Father that Jesus the Son paid for by His death, not payment to Himself!