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).
Do our systems of thought teach that Jesus is really the One True God?
Discussion in 'Baptist Theology & Bible Study' started by JonC, Dec 14, 2018.
Page 4 of 11
-
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. -
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. -
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 Well-Known MemberSite Supporter
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 Well-Known MemberSite Supporter
-
-
The Biblicist Well-Known MemberSite Supporter
-
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 Well-Known MemberSite Supporter
-
The Biblicist Well-Known MemberSite Supporter
-
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 -
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 Well-Known MemberSite Supporter
-
The Biblicist Well-Known MemberSite Supporter
-
Martin Marprelate Well-Known MemberSite Supporter
-
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 Well-Known MemberSite Supporter
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. -
-
The Biblicist Well-Known MemberSite Supporter
Page 4 of 11