Saturday, January 19, 2013

Christology




        I respect every person’s right to believe what they so choose. I also respect their right to share their beliefs. That said, this is what I believe: I believe in the Lord Jesus Christ; I believe He is God, equal in nature, distinct in person, and subordinate in duties.[1] I believe that He was born of the virgin Mary, lived a sinless life, was crucified for the forgiveness of our sins, was buried but rose on the third day, and ascended to heaven where He is seated at the right hand of the Father (Eph. 1:1-21).
        I realize that there are those who question whether Jesus was fully human. To this I would quote the apostle John when he states, “and the Word was made flesh, and dwelt among us (John 1:14). The apostle Paul weighed in when he said, “God sent forth His Son, made of a woman, made under the law” (Gal. 4:4). In the Jewish culture, the linage of a person was traced through the bloodline of the father; but Paul, as well as others, refers to Mary as the mother, rather than Joseph as the father. The reason is simple: Jesus was not Joseph’s biological son. Jesus’ only father was God the Father.
        There are other arguments questioning the deity of Christ; again, we can look to the Scriptures for these answers. We have God the Father proclaiming Jesus as His Son at His baptism (Mark 1:11; Mat. 3:17; Luke 3:22), and John the Baptist’s testimony of what God had revealed to him, this being that Jesus was the Son of God (John 1:32-34). In chapter five, verses 19 through 46 in the book of John, we are given a good example of who Jesus said He was, and what role He fills. Clearly, if we take the Bible as the Word of God, these claims are indisputable.
        Grasping the full deity and full humanity of Christ can be a bit perplexing. One doctrine that explains this is called the “Hypostatic Union.” Produced by the Council of Chalcedon, fourth ecumenical council of the church to discuss the two natures of Christ, it states, “In the incarnation of the Son of God, a human nature was inseparably united forever with the divine nature in the one person of Jesus Christ, yet with two natures remaining distinct, whole, and unchanged, without mixture or confusion, so that the one person, Jesus Christ, is truly God and truly man.[2]  This basically states that Jesus was given human nature at His birth, in human flesh, while never loosing His deity. Jesus was, is, and ever shall be, God.
          So what does it mean for Jesus to be both God and man? Orthodox theologians have always taught that in the one person of Christ, we have true God and true man.[3] Even in human flesh, Jesus never gave up His Godly attributes. Although He experienced pain, sorrow, hunger and so forth, He still maintained His omnipotence, omnipresence, and omniscience.
        In order for God the Father to save fallen man, a perfect sacrifice had to be made. Since all of mankind is born in sin (Rom. 3:23), it is beyond our ability to live a perfect life; therefore, no man could measure up. God knew this and planned a way to overcome this dilemma. By sending His perfect Son, Jesus, He alone could be the perfect sacrifice once and for all. But to do this, He had to do it as a man. Christ Jesus had to experience temptation, pain, human weakness, and prevail sinless, to be our propitiation (Heb. 2:17). By fulfilling this requirement, He not only became our Great High Priest, but He covered our sin debt, becoming the sacrifice as well.
        To deny Christ’s deity or humanity is to err greatly. As stated earlier, Jesus was, is, and ever shall be God. For those who reject His deity comes condemnation: “he who does not believe the Son shall not see life, but the wrath of God abides on him” (John 3:18; 3:36). This means eternal separation from God, or hell. To deny His humanity is equally dangerous as we basically call His Word a lie and Christ a liar. Consider Hebrews 2:17, which states that Christ had to be made like His brethren. Again, Paul says He was, “born of the seed of David according to the flesh, and declared to be the Son of God” (Rom. 1:3-4), and “God was manifested in the flesh,” (1 Tim. 3:16).
        Some common objections to the traditional understanding of Christology are Ebionitism, “Christ being born naturally, on whom the Holy Spirit came at His baptism,” and docetism, “which asserted that the suffering of Christ were apparent rather than real.”[4] Other false teachings included Gnosticism and monarchianism (dynamism, modalism, Sabellianism).[5] Arius “denied the possibility of any divine emanation, or contact with the world, or of any distinction within the Godhead.”[6]  He also “denied to Christ a human soul.”[7] After the Council of Nicea, a question arose about the possibility of Jesus being truly God and truly man. A man by the name of Apollinaris, trying to do good, but badly mistaken, denied His complete manhood. Later, Nestorius, bishop of Constantinople, caused problems by refusing to approve the phrase “mother of God” in reference to Mary.[8] Another man by the name of Eutyches, caused controversy when he asserted, “that in the incarnate Christ the two natures coalesced in one. This implied a docetic view of Christ’s human nature and called in question his consubstantiality with us.”[9] Then there arose a question as to whether Christ had two wills, since He had two natures.[10] Down through the years, many have argued over this and that concerning Christ. While I may not be a theologian, I do have opinions on the matter. First, I believe there are things about God that we do not, nor can we understand or know. Second, I know enough to take the Bible as God’s Word in truth. Thus, if it says Jesus was fully God and fully man, I believe it. Next, I believe whatever Jesus’ feelings, nature, or will might have been, He was correct. There is no indication in all of Scripture of the Father not being pleased with Him or His actions. Being God, He could not go against His nature.
        The fact that Jesus became a man and experienced everything that I face encourages me. He set an example for us to follow and we have the Holy Spirit to guide us. He never said we have to be perfect and He doesn’t expect us to earn our salvation. He loves us and bore our sins upon himself. My goal this side of Heaven is to grow more like Him everyday until I see Him face to face.
        If He, as God, was willing to become a man, leaving His home in Glory, to walk among us and face the shame of the cross, which He did not deserve, to save one such as I, how can I not worship Him? No mere man could do what Jesus did.                   


  
     Bibliography
Elwell, Walter. Evangelical Dictionary of Theology. Grand Rapids: Baker Book House                                   Company, 2001. (would not let me space this line)
Towns, Elmer. Theology for Today. Mason: Cengage Learning, 2008


        [1] Elmer Towns, Theology for Today (Mason: Cengage Learning, 2008), 145
        [2] Walter Elwell,   Evangelical Dictionary of Theology (Grand Rapids: Baker Book House Company,2001), 583

        [3] Ibid. 277
        [4] Walter Elwell, Evangelical Dictionary of Theology (Grand Rapids: Baker Book House Company,2001), 241
       
        [5] Ibid., 242
      
        [6] Ibid., 242

        [7] Ibid., 242

         [8] Ibid., 242

        [9] Walter Elwell, Evangelical Dictionary of Theology (Grand Rapids: Baker Book House Company,2001),  242

        [10] Ibid., 242

Destiny of the Unsaved



        There are many arguments used today to try to disprove God’s existence. One such argument is that a loving God would not send people to Hell. Clark Pinnock writes, "How can Christians possibly project a deity of such cruelty and vindictiveness whose ways include inflicting everlasting torture upon His creatures, however sinful they may have been? Surely a God who would do such a thing is more nearly like Satan than like God, at least by any ordinary moral standards, and by the gospel itself."[1]     
        To state, “at least by any ordinary moral standards, and by the gospel itself," one acknowledges a moral standard or law.[2] If there is a moral law, there must be a moral law giver. This moral lawgiver is the God of the Bible. Pinnock states that He is cruel and no better than Satan; however, for a person to form an educated opinion, they must look at the facts. The Bible does say anyone who rejects Jesus Christ in this life will spend eternity in judgment but depending on a person’s beliefs, that judgment may look very different.
        Two approaches to reconcile sinners with God’s judgment, while eliminating eternal damnation, are annihilationism and universalism. Annihilationism says the souls of the lost either become non-existent at death or eventually lapse into nothingness.[3] Universalism says all souls are eventually saved.[4] These views, while using specific verses in an attempt to gain credibility, clearly contradict the teachings of the apostle John and Jesus Himself in regards to future punishment. Interestingly, both spoke more about the love of God than any other contributors to the New Testament.[5] Eternal punishment is exactly that, eternal (Mat. 18:8; 25:41, 46; 2 Thes. 1:9). There is some dispute as to the degree and specifics of the punishment but the Scriptures clearly support this idea.
          The Bible uses different words that have similar meaning in regards to the place of punishment. Sheol, according to the Evangelical Dictionary of Theology, is an intermediate state where the soul is dealt with and Hades, “is virtually synonymous with the Hebrew Sheol.”[6] Another word found in the Scriptures is Gehenna and it is used metaphorically for hell; originally a location outside the city of Jerusalem, people would sacrifice their children to Moloch and burn their bodies there.[7] The word Hell is used in various locations throughout Scripture and has various meanings, the original meaning, “simply ‘the grave.’”[8]
        The idea of fire and brimstone conjure up images of tormented souls in a fiery, cavernous dwelling. The Biblical story of Lazarus and the rich man give a glimpse into the states of eternal life or damnation (Lk. 16:19-31). The thought of the rich man begging for a drop of water on his tongue and not wanting his brothers to perish with him is almost unbearable. Most likely, this is where many opponents to Christianity find God to be tyrannical and unjust.
        Jesus said it would be better to pluck out your own eye and live than to save it and go to hell (Mat. 5:29). That is a shocking statement but if He used such a graphic example, obviously it is worse than we can imagine. In Matthew 25:46, Jesus plainly states that we will either go to eternal punishment or eternal life. John wrote, “Anyone whose name was not found written in the book of life was thrown into the lake of fire” (Rev. 20:15, NIV).
        One argument against the existence of hell is stated, “Truth, we are told, is discovered only by science and since hell can’t be proven by the scientific method it must be rejected.”[9] Another argument against hell and eternal damnation is the doctrine of apokatastasis. It uses Philippians 2:10-13 and 2 Peter 3:9 to say because God wills for all to be saved, at some point, all will be saved.[10]
                It can be argued that a judge is not fair or just if he sends someone to jail, regardless of their crime. If the judge were to release a guilty person, the outcry would be tremendous. When a person commits a crime, he knowingly accepts the risks and in essence, seals his own fate. The judge is simply the tool that makes it legal; so it is with God. He does not make us sin (Jas. 1:13), but when we do, He gives us a way out. (John 3:16). Our sins must be punished and for those who accept the atonement of Christ, we can escape damnation; this is neither unjust nor un-loving.
        When sharing the gospel with others, the truth is always best. The lost need to know what they are facing and we must present them with their options, much like a doctor informing his patient that has cancer. To do any less is not love.


Bibliography
Elwell, Walter A. Evangelical Dictionary of Theology, 2nd Edition. Grand Rapids: Baker Book House Company, 2001.

Pinnock, C. H. "The Destruction of the Finally Impenitent," Criswell Theological Review 4 (Spring 1990): 246 - 7.


        [1].  C. H. Pinnock, "The Destruction of the Finally Impenitent," Criswell Theological Review 4 (Spring 1990): 246 - 7.
      
        [2].  Ibid., 246 - 7.

       [3]. Walter A. Elwell, Evangelical Dictionary of Theology, 2nd Edition, (Grand Rapids: Baker Book House Company, 2001), 64.

        [4]. Ibid., 1232-3.
        [5].  Walter A. Elwell, Evangelical Dictionary of Theology, 2nd Edition, (Grand Rapids: Baker Book House Company, 2001), 64.

        [6]. Ibid., 1098; 532. 

        [7]. Ibid. 480.
 
        [8]. Ibid., 548.
         9. Walter A. Elwell, Evangelical Dictionary of Theology, 2nd Edition, (Grand Rapids: Baker Book House Company, 2001), 547.

        [10]. Ibid., 1232.

The Problem of Evil



        Murder, rape and other violent crimes, as well as hurricanes and other natural disasters, are more frequent today than in the near past. This being the case, many people are asking, if God is all loving and all powerful, why does He allow evil to exist? To address this issue, since it is directed at God, the most logical place to look is with God Himself. He speaks to man through His word, the Bible. 
        The first step would be to look at the problem of evil. In the Evangelical Dictionary of Theology, it states, “There is no one problem, because there are various kinds of problems of evil, and all are different.”[1] It goes on to say that, from a theological standpoint, known as a theodicy, the view, in question, must not contradict itself; not that it cannot contradict the questioner’s views or the beliefs of another theistic system.[2] Therefore, the questioner has to weigh the theodicy and then evaluate whether there is any contradiction.
        The Bible says that God created everything that was created, including man and He made man in His image (Gen. 1:27; Gen. 5:1; Deut. 4:32; Eph. 4:24, NKJV). He gave man an inherent knowledge of right and wrong and he gave this man, Adam, one command, “Of every tree of the garden you may freely eat; but of the tree of the knowledge of good and evil you shall not eat, for in the day that you eat of it you shall surely die.” (Gen. 2:16-17, NKJV). Adam had a personal relationship with God; yet he disobeyed Him. This is where the first problem of evil begins (for mankind).
        According to the Evangelical Dictionary of Theology, there are two types of evil: moral and natural.[3] However, while different, you cannot separate them. Moral evil is the act whereby man breaks God’s law; while natural evil, hurricanes, etc., are a result of man’s sinfulness.[4] When Adam chose to willfully disobey God, he brought God’s curse, not only upon mankind but on the earth itself. God created perfection; man invited sin and corruption.
        There are various theodicies; one is that of Gottfried Leibniz. His theodicy is based on metaphysics. He states that God, if He indeed is good, would have to put man in the absolute best environment and under the best conditions for him to thrive.[5] He also reasons that “God always operates on the basis of sufficient reason.”[6] Summed up, if man can best thrive in a world that contains both moral good and moral evil, God would have to provide this environment for Him (God) to be just and good. While Leibniz does not contradict himself, the questioner may not agree with him. 
        Other theodicies, “rest upon a modified rationalistic theology.”[7] Basic points of these theodicies are: (1) God is not under obligation to create any world because His existence is the supreme good; (2) creating a world is a good thing but not the only good thing He could do and whatever He does is based on reason but these reasons are not necessarily universal law; (3) there are a limitless number of worlds He could create but some are inherently evil by nature, therefore He could not create them but there are other good worlds He could create. There is no such thing as a best possible world. (4) Lastly, God had the choice to create or not, as He so chose.[8]  
        According to the Evangelical Dictionary of Theology, the problem of evil arises in this theodicy. One such problem is whether this world is one of the good worlds; another problem is the sinful acts carried out by creatures that God created for this world, supposing that God created a world where evil did not exist.[9]    
        A theodicy, to have merit, must be internally consistent. It must show that God is good, while not removing evil from the world. As an act of perfect love, God gave man the free will to choose or reject Him. Anything less and man would not have the freedom to choose and that would not be perfect love. As a further act of perfect love, God prepared a plan of redemption for fallen man, the perfect sacrifice of Jesus on the cross. God gave man the option to choose but provides a way back into fellowship with Him for eternity (John 1:1-14; Acts 3:13-26).
        Sin separates man from God and an unrepentant man cannot be in fellowship with God because God is holy. He must first repent and confess his sin; then God will hear him and abide with him and give him eternal life. A believer may have questions for or about God, Job and his friends did. Although they all disputed certain beliefs about God, He showed His great mercy and forgave them. (Job 2:11-42:17). The believer is expected to pray and study God’s word; if he does, God will reveal His truths to that person; however, if a person chooses to believe a thing based on convenience or selfish motivation, God will deal with him.   
         




Bibliography
Elwell, Walter A. Evangelical Dictionary of Theology, 2nd Edition. Grand Rapids: Baker Book House Company, 2001.



What is the problem of evil?
Define moral evil and natural evil, and illustrate them with examples.
Seek to explain why there is sin among mankind (the philosophical problem of moral evil) and why bad things happen in nature (the philosophical problem of natural evil). Consider the various theodicies presented in the reading, and address the merits and faults of each one.
Briefly explain why a theodicy must be internally consistent, and defend the internal consistency of your explanation of evil’s existence.
Consider how personal experience of evil may affect one’s relationship with God (the religious problem of evil).  Do you believe someone can dispute a certain belief about God without actually attacking God Himself?


        [1].  Walter A. Elwell, Evangelical Dictionary of Theology, 2nd Edition, (Grand Rapids: Baker Book House Company, 2001), 414.

        [2]. Ibid., 414.
        [3]. Walter A. Elwell, Evangelical Dictionary of Theology, 2nd Edition, (Grand Rapids: Baker Book House Company, 2001), 412.

        [4]. Ibid., 412

        [5]. Ibid., 1185.

        [6]. Ibid., 1185.

        [7]. Ibid., 1185.
      
        [8]. Ibid., 1185.

        [9]. Ibid., 1185.