1

JESUS CHRIST: GOD-MAN

Lars Wilhelmsson

2

CONTENTS Pages

PREFACE 3-4

INTRODUCTION 5-10

1. THE RELIGIOUS LANDSCAPE 11-24

2. ORTHODOXY AND HERESY 25-43

3. EXTERNAL PROOFS FOR JESUS' EXISTENCE 44-50

4. THE ESSENCE OF ORTHODOX CHRISTIANITY 51-69

5. INSPIRATION, AUTHORITY, CANONICITY 70-122

AND HERMENEUTICS

6. THE PREEXISTENCE OF JESUS THE CHRIST 123-131

7. THE HUMANITY OF JESUS CHRIST Part I 132-146

Names, An Early Christian Hymn, The Virgin Birth

8. THE HUMANITY OF JESUS CHRIST Part II 147-169

Attributes, Bodily Resurrection, Purpose & Nature of the Incarnation

9. THE DEITY OF JESUS CHRIST Part I 170-180

Attributes, Offices, Prerogatives, Work

10. THE DEITY OF JESUS CHRIST Part II 181-202

Names

11. THE DEITY OF JESUS CHRIST Part III 203-218

Unique Relationship

12. THE DEITY OF JESUS CHRIST Part IV 219-227

Jesus' Own Consciousness

13. THE DEITY OF JESUS CHRIST Part V 228-235

Teachings

14. THE DEITY OF JESUS CHRIST Part VI 236-242

Problem Texts

15. THE DEITY OF JESUS CHRIST Part VII 243-256

Old Testament Names and Terms Applied to Jesus

16. THE RESURRECTION OF JESUS CHRIST 257-286

17. ONLY SIX OPTIONS: THE CHALLENGE TO DECIDE 287-301

NOTES 302-323

BIBLIOGRAPHY 324-333

3

PREFACE

If we miss who Jesus is, everything else will be off kilter. Every cult and heresy has

demonstrated this. Only orthodox Christianity recognizes Jesus for who He is:

GOD THE SON or SON OF GOD

SON OF MAN

GOD-MAN

"He is what God means by man. He is what man means by God."1

--J. S. Whale

Today in America there are about 4,000 different cults with about 30 million adherents,

representing a missionfield on our doorsteps. Our society and culture has also become fascinated

with the lure of the occult. This is seen most vividly in the horrific pace of growth of the New

Age movement. It has been estimated that there are 50-60 million practicing some aspect of

the occult. A recent magazine stated that some 40 million Americans check their horoscope

every morning to see what their zodiac sign says about how to live that day.

Our universities and colleges, which for the most part actively or passively teach

agnosticism, are also filled with students who are helplessly adrift in this sea of religious

pluralism and moral relativism. Many of these confused students are desperately seeking for

some kind of meaningful religious experience, for transcendence and personal significance.

Others focus more on objective truth. Most, if not all, look for some semblance of moral and/or

spiritual certainty.

We dare not remain passive in the face of so great a challenge that is before us!

Christ offers all of these! To know Him who is the Truth is to experience life to the full

(eternal lifeGod's kind of life) with the certainty that He is who He claimed to be: the Messiah, the Son of Man, the Son of God or God the Son, the God-Man.

The purpose of this book is threefold. First and foremost, the purpose is to present an

accurate portrait of the Person of Jesus Christthe God-Man. Hopefully this will lead to a richer worship of Christ, a deeper devotion to Him, and more zealous service in His name.

I have heard too many Christians who have testified that they were thankful that they

were in the shower and didn't hear the doorbell when the Jehovah's Witnesses came knocking.

Why were they thankful? Too often it is because they were not prepared biblically to address the

arguments marshaled by such an evangelistic cult. I have also personally seen Christians who

were twisted into theological pretzels by proof-texting Jehovah's Witnesses. This is a tragic

confession.

4

Therefore, it is also the aim of this book to equip the faithful in their apologetic task.

God's people must know whom they worship and serve. This implies a thorough knowledge of

Scripture since it is here that Jesus Christ is revealed. This is crucial if Christians are to "contend

for the faith that was once for all entrusted to the saints" (Jude 3). This also means that we as

Christians must "always be prepared to give an answer to everyone who asks us to give the

reason for the hope we have" (1 Pe 3:15).

It is further within the purview of this book to engage nonbelievers. By presenting a true

picture of Jesus Christ and explaining the orthodox position about who He was and is, it is my

hope that the rationality and logic of the presentationthe ring of truthwill be compelling enough to prompt their consideration in affirming Jesus Christ as Savior and Lord.

5

INTRODUCTION

6

It is in His name that millions pray every day

and

It is by His name that millions curse every day!

7

There is a vicious battle going on for our minds! This should not surprise us since the

Bible states that "What a man thinks, so is he" (Pr 23:7). This battle for the mind, and

thus the heart of man, is coming from all directions.

British philosopher Os Guinness has correctly observed:

"When God is dead, man doesn't believe in nothing. He believes in anything."1

Today we are reaping the fruits from cultivating secular humanism based upon the

presupposition that there is no God. Man has replaced God. Augustine affirmed 1500 years ago:

"Cursed is everyone who places his hope in man."

The vicious battle for our minds is obvious everywhere:

Secular humanism with its agnostic mindset and emphasis on man and his achievements (i.e. science and technology) has left a spiritual vacuum in our society.

Religious liberalism (modern theology) which has undermined the authority of the Bible as the Word of God and thus left people with nothing more than the shifting sand of human

opinion in which one's authority for truth is the latest "discovery" (theory) of truth.

Deconstructionism which holds that since there is no objective truth, past events or writings have no intrinsic meaning. What matters is not what authors intended in literature but

what we think of what they wrote. Thus the past is freely revised to fit current politically and

religiously correct values.

Religious pluralism with its assumption that all religions are works of human interpretation and that no one religion has "the truth" has undermined the claim of Jesus who

categorically stated, "I am the way and the truth and the life. No one comes to [God] the Father

except through Me" (Jn 14:6).

The great god Entertainment which has captivated the hearts of a people who are, as sociologist Neil Postman entitled his book, Amusing Ourselves to Death.2

Two thousand cults with millions of adherents many of which are zealously and fervently evangelizing their narrow, authoritarian dogma.

The New Age movement, which is old Hinduism in new clothes and which reeks of the occult, is outpacing all other cults in their horrific rate of growth as it is increasingly

dominating the "spiritual consciousness" of our society.

The occult has ensnared millions in its satanic bondage.

8

It is the aim of this book to show that Christianity is the only viable alternative. We will

do this by addressing the basic tenet of historic Christianity: Christology. Christology means

simply theology about Christwhat we think of Him, who He is and what He has done.

What we think about Jesus Christ is basic to everything in Christianity. If our

thinking is defective we are in danger of heresy, whether in the liberal camp of Christendom, or

in the innumerable cults that are taking over the religious landscape of America.

Even the faith movement (the Gospel of Health, Wealth, and Prosperity) whose roots are

deeply embedded in evangelical, conservative theology, is weakened by a defective Christology.

The divine edge of Jesus has been blunted. The qualitative differencethe One who is Wholly Otherhas in many cases been reduced to a quantitative difference. This means that Jesus Christ, and those who believe in Him, are viewed as having the same nature, with Jesus being

merely more advanced in His spiritual attainment. Such teaching is nothing less than heresy.

All the heresies either distort or deny the biblical teaching concerning the Person of Jesus

Christ!

Every false teaching denies either the humanity or the deity of Jesus Christ. This is

nothing new for the apostles John and Paul addressed this issue in their day as insipient

Gnosticism with its various strands of heretical teachings (i.e. the worship of angels) threatened

the early church.

"What do you think of Christ?" is the test of orthodoxy of any group or movement

calling itself Christian. This is foundational. The attitude of any and every cult is "We need

Jesus, but . . ." The attitude of theological and religious liberalism is: "Jesus who?"

THE PERENNIAL QUESTION

Jesus towers over the rest of mankind in His influence! No other figure in human history

has come close in impacting culture and society as Jesus has. History is truly His Story. In

varying degrees history has revolved around His person and ministry (this is especially true in

the West). He has made His mark on every continent of this globe. His message has gone forth

everywhere.

This should be no surprise to anyone who is even dimly familiar with the biblical account of

Jesus. It was only within a few decades of His death that stories were circulating about His

miraculous birth, His compassionate and supernatural ministry, His unusual death, and His

triumphant resurrection. By the end of the first century Jesus was known as "Son of God," "God

the Son," "Son of Man," "the Word become Flesh," "the Bread of Life," "the Light of the

World," "the Judge of all Mankind," "the Lord of the Universe."

9

Within a few centuries Jesus had become "Lord" of the very empire which crucified Him!

He has dominated the culture of the West since that time. Even the Enlightenment could not

obliterate His influence. Religion, art, music, architecture, education and politics have all been

either formed or informed by His towering cultural status. Thus He has to be reckoned with. He

simply cannot be ignored!

In the book, Christ the Tiger, Thomas Howard shows powerfully how often people, even

professing Christians, manage to construct a Jesus who will fit their own needs and

preconceptions. Howard's point is that people do not want to face the actual Jesus, who is no

"tame kitty but a troublesome tiger."3

This tendency to create a Jesus we would like is a perennial temptation. Since the figure

of Jesus is too large to be ignored by mankind, He has instead been shaped into the kind of

person to which we can best relate. As C. Stephen Evans has pointed out in his book, The Quest

for Faith, too often He has become "the patron saint of whatever cause we feel most deeply

about."4

But who is this Jesus Christ whom people are to believe in and follow? Who He is has

always been a perplexing issue for mankind. Intellectual honesty demands that we seek to find

out, as much as possible, who the actual Jesus of Nazareth is.

When Jesus healed the helpless paralytic and extended forgiveness to him the scribes and

the Pharisees asked, "Who is this fellow who speaks blasphemy?" (Lk 5:20-21)

When Jesus calmed the storm on the sea of Galilee the terrified disciples asked each

other, "Who is this? Even the wind and the waves obey Him?" (Mk 4:41)

When those who shared dinner with Him heard Jesus grant pardon to a prostitute they

were amazed and said among themselves, "Who is this who even forgives sins?" (Lk 7:49)

When Herod, the tetrarch of Galilee, heard about the ministry of Jesus he was perplexed

and said, "I beheaded John. Who, then, is this I hear such things about?" (9:9)

When Jesus rode into Jerusalem on the donkey "the whole city was stirred and asked,

"Who is this?" (Mt 21:10)

This question of who Jesus isis the key question Jesus posed to the Pharisees of His day and the question which continues to fascinate, haunt and perplex people of every generation

right to this day. The perennial question is:

"What do you think about the Christ?

Whose Son is He?" (22:42).

10

Once when Jesus was praying in private and His disciples were with Him, He inquired of

them,

"Who do the crowds say I am?" (Lk 9:18)

They replied,

"Some say John the Baptist; others say Elijah; and still others, that one of the

prophets of long ago has come back to life" (v. 19).

Then Jesus posed the question directly to them (the disciples):

"But what about you? Who do you say I am?" (v. 20).

Peter, one of the twelve, responded,

"The Christ of God" (v. 20).

The Person of Jesus, who He is, is the crucial issue. Why? Because He is the criterion

by which every Christian affirmation has to be judged. It is in the light of who Jesus is by which

other teachings stand or fall. The uniqueness of Christianity is found in the Person of Jesus

Christ.

Sundar Singh was born into an Indian Sikh family and became an itinerant Christian

Sadhu after his conversion to Christianity. At one time when he was asked by an agnostic

professor of comparative religions in a Hindu college what he had found in Christianity which he

had not found in his former religion of Hinduism, he replied, "I have Christ." To this answer the

professor impatiently followed up with the obvious question, "But what particular principle or

doctrine have you found that you did not have before?" Once again Sundar Singh responded,

"The particular thing I have found is Christ."5

The Person of Jesus Christ is the crucial issue also because our salvation, our eternal

destiny, is dependent on who we believe Jesus to be. Jesus made this crystal clear when He

challenged the Pharisees:

"I told you that you would die in your sins; if you do not believe that I am

the one I claim to be, you will indeed die in your sins" (Jn 8:24).

11

I. THE RELIGIOUS LANDSCAPE

12

Secular Humanism, a 19th century philosophy in the 20th century with its teachings of

evolution, existentialism (subjectivism) and situation ethics (moral relativism), has left a dearth

of spiritual truth. Young people bounce from one sexual liaison to the next and are unable to find

love because they are selfish and thus unwilling to commit themselves. Such liaisons are often

superficial manifestations of the deep universal quest for love. And for many, love is a

euphemism for sex. Love, after all, is indispensable to humanness . . . because God is love. Man

seeks love because he was made in His image (imago dei).

The spiritual vacuum produced by secular humanism has created a real identity crisis in

the American youth. Young people no longer have answers to the three questions of "Who am

I"? "Why am I here"? and "Where am I going"?

The universities, political parties and modern technology have been found wanting in

providing answers to man's existence. When there has been the desperate need for the bedrock of

biblical authority, too often the church, like the rest of society, has offered nothing more than

warmed over platitudes of liberal theology and secular psychology. She has devastatingly

suffered from subjectivism.

In the New York Times issue (February 9, 1994) there was an article which describes

worshiping in the fast lane. This article under "Religion Notes" was entitled, "Minutes With

God." It stated:

"Concerned that people were moving into the area and not coming to church, a

New Jersey minister has devised an idea for the busy and detached: express

worship. 'You give us 22 minutes and we'll show you the Kingdom of God.' says

the minister, the Rev. John D. Kleist of First Lutheran Church in Stewartsville,

N.J.1

The "bare-bones service" includes the following:

". . . a greeting, an apology for sins, a statement of faith, a prayer, a song, a reading

from Scripture and--perhaps the greatest innovation--a two minute sermon. The

sermon focuses on the Scripture reading and is followed by a congregational

discussion that lasts no more than five minutes."2

A whole two minutes for a "sermon" that is followed by a five minute discussion time!

The article points out that the strategy seems to be working since the number of

participants had grown from nine to forty in just one month.

13

Charles Haddon Spurgeon, the prince of preachers, lamented more than a hundred years

ago:

"Everywhere there is apathy. Nobody cares whether that which is preached is true

or false. A sermon is a sermon whatever the subject; only, the shorter it is the better."3

A fitting description of the church at the beginning of the 21st century!

THE DEMISE OF THEOLOGY

There has been a virtual disappearance of theology from the life of the church, much

less society. There has sometimes been a subtle, and sometimes not so subtle, shift from God to

the self as the central focus of faith.

This shift has been evident in the psychologized preaching with its lack of conviction and

authority and in the church's pragmatic approach to virtually everything sacred. Theology has

taken a back seat to methodology. Utilitarianism (usefulness as a standard of what is good), not

truth, has become the standard of conduct.

Capacity for truth has been sadly diminished and modernity (when what is modern

provides the basis for what to think or do) has established its roots deeply in the soil of the

American mind. As a society we have lost our theological soul. Theological soundbites are all

many can endure as we have increasingly approached that time prophesied long ago:

"But mark this: There will be terrible times in the last days. People will be lovers of

themselves, lovers of money, boastful, proud, abusive, disobedient to their parents,

ungrateful, unholy, without love, unforgiving, slanderous, without self-control,

brutal, not lovers of the good, treacherous, rash, conceited, lovers of pleasure rather

than lovers of Godhaving a form of godliness but denying its power. . . . always learning but never able to acknowledge the truth . . . men of depraved

minds . . . evil men will go from bad to worse, deceiving and being deceived. . . .

For the time will come when men will not put up with sound doctrine. Instead

to suit their own desires, they will gather around them a great number of teachers

to say what their itching ears want to hear. They will turn their ears away

from the truth and turn aside to myths" (2 Ti 3:1-5,7-8,13; 4:3-4).

RELIGIOUS COUNTERFEITS

Into the vacuum of spiritual confusion that characterizes our age has rushed a number of

religious counterfeits known to us as cults. This should not be surprising since the Bible warns us

that in the last days "false Christs and false prophets will arise and mislead many" (Mt 24:5). Our

global community stands in the midst of Matthew 24.

14

The Bible warned us long ago:

"Watch out for false prophets. They come to you in sheep's clothing, but

inwardly they are ferocious wolves. By their fruit you will recognize them.

Do people pick grapes from thornbushes, or figs from thistles? Likewise

every good tree bears good fruit, but a bad tree bears bad fruit. A good tree

cannot bear bad fruit, and a bad tree cannot bear good fruit. Every tree that

does not bear good fruit is cut down and thrown into the fire. Thus, by their

fruit you will recognize them.

Not everyone who says to Me, 'Lord, Lord,' will enter the kingdom of heaven,

but only he who does the will of My Father who is in heaven. Many will

say to Me on that day, 'Lord, Lord, did we not prophesy in Your name, and in

Your name drive out demons and perform many miracles? Then I will tell

them plainly, 'I never knew you. Away from Me, you evildoers!'" (Mt 7:15-23)

There was no doubt in the mind of Jesus that false prophets would come. The accuracy of

such a prophecy was verified in the first five centuries of the church as it was continually

barraged with heresies.

"Wolves in sheep's clothing" who are inwardly "ferocious wolves" or "evildoers" come in

all types of religious garb. Their mission, whether intentional or not, is to undermine the faith

of those who are still seeking for truth and of those who have come to experience in a living and

vital way Him who is "the Way and the Truth and the Life" (Jn 14:6).

Jesus taught that the "fruit" of these false prophets would become apparent. We must be

mindful that the "fruit" may be doctrinal or theological as well as ethical and moral. While the

behavior of these wolves may seem ethical and moral by human standards, if they undermine the

truthfulness of who Jesus is and thus reject Him, they must be rejected as counterfeit. John

warned:

"Dear children, this is the last hour; and as you have heard that the antichrist is

coming, even now many antichrists have come. This is how we know it is the

last hour. They went out from us, but they did not really belong to us. For if they

had belonged to us, they would have remained with us; but their going showed

that none of them belonged to us" (1 Jn 2:18-19).

The world will be inundated by false prophets, false christs (antichrists) and false

teachers. Some of these are extremely difficult to spot. Often what appear to be good things are

found among their excesses. If every religious quack was obviously fake, no one would be

deceived. That is why we are warned to be on our guard:

"For false Christs and false prophets will appear and perform signs and

miracles to deceive the electif that were possible" (Mk 13:22).

15

Here we see the extreme deceptiveness of the false prophets where they are almost able

to deceive the very "elect." Such religious hucksters are most deadly when they are most

sophisticated religiously and theologically. For they can look like the real thing. This should not

surprise us in light of Paul's warning:

"For such men are false apostles, deceitful workmen, masquerading as apostles

of Christ. And no wonder, for Satan himself masquerades as an angel of light.

It is not surprising, then, if his servants masquerade as servants of righteousness.

Their end will be what their actions deserve" (2 Co 11:13-15).

"For certain men whose condemnation was written about long ago have secretly

slipped in among you. They are godless men, who change the grace of God

into a license for immorality and deny Jesus Christ our only Sovereign and Lord" (Jude 4).

The devil is not so dangerous when he is dressed in red underwear and proudly holds his

pitchfork. He is most harmful and destructive when he sits in the pew, lectures in the classroom,

and even preaches from the pulpit.

Who are these "wolves in sheep's clothing, these false prophets, false apostles, false

christs (antichrists)?

They are theological or religious liberals (to which many humanists belong) who have

reduced Jesus to a mere human being. The world-famed medical missionary and Nobel price

recipient Albert Schweitzer, prior to going to Africa, wrote two brilliant books dealing with "the

historical quest of Jesus" that shaped scholarly studies concerning the person of Jesus for the rest

of the century. Schweitzer's image of Jesus was that of an eschatological prophet who expected

the events in the immediate future to bring all history to a close and saw His death as playing a

decisive role in bringing about the end. But Jesus was mistaken since the end did not come and

He died perhaps realizing His mistake. This image of Jesus as an eschatological prophet

gradually became the consensus among scholars and is still felt in seminaries throughout the

world.

Liberalism in its blind skepticism has trivialized the Bible by reducing it to a mere

human document. And liberals keep flooding the secular bookstores with their "newest

discoveries" (e.g. Barbara Thiering and her Jesus the Man: A New Interpretation from the Dead

Sea Scrolls, John Dominic Crossan and his Jesus and The Historical Jesus, THE FIVE

GOSPELS by Robert W. Funk, Roy W. Hoover, and The Jesus Seminar; Ian Wilson and his

Jesus: A Life, and Born of a Woman: A Bishop Rethinks the Birth of Jesus by John Shelby

Spong).

16

These books pontificate liberal theories which reshuffle the gospels. Wilson's and

Spong's books especially, show a shoddy level of analysis and argumentation and do not add a

single thing to the world's knowledge about Jesus. Rather, they are filled with inventive

speculation that disregards the historical method. The path they closely follow is that of

rationalist reduction in which there is no "reasonable alternative reading of the available

evidence but a complete and random reshuffling of the pieces to construct a picture more

satisfying to the aesthetic (Wilson) or political (Spong) sensibilities of the authors."4

In 1977 a debate on the incarnation took place in the United Kingdom with the

publication of the volume The Myth of God Incarnate by seven British theologians. This book

created quite a stir partly because of its provocative title. In the same year an answer was given

by several evangelical scholars in the volume The Truth of God Incarnate. At the same time the

Anglican vicar, George Carey, wrote the booklet entitled God Incarnate. All these books that

challenge the incarnation of God are outworn arguments that have been adequately addressed

long ago by biblical scholars.

Thiering's, Wilson's, Crossan's, and especially Spong's book, with their typical outlandish

claims have been ably criticized or handled by New Testament scholar James Dunn in his book,

The Evidence for Jesus. Marcus Borg and his Jesus A New Vision and Conflict, Holiness and

Politics in the Teaching of Jesus have ably undermined the more extreme liberal arguments.

Roman Catholic scholar Raymond Brown in his voluminous and meticulous treatments on The

Birth of Christ and on The Death of Christ has pulled the rug from under much of the

argumentation of these liberal theories. New Testament scholar Wright in his book Who Was

Jesus? has taken these theories to task and shown that, as he puts it, "they fail to reach anything

like the right answer" as to who Jesus was. Wright's other two scholarly treatments, The Climax

of the Covenant and The New Testament and the People of God show the nature of history and

first-century Judaism and early Christianity which invalidates much of the claims of these recent

(as well as older) liberal writings.

Other scholars who have recently and masterfully addressed liberal arguments are

I. Howard Marshall, Leon Morris, R.T. France, David Wenham, D. A. Carson, Donald Guthrie,

Ralph P. Martin, Richard Longenecker, D. A. Hagner, J. Ramsey Michaels, etc.5 Solomon's

lament fits the futile mind-set of the liberals: "There is nothing new under the sun" (Ecc 1:9). Yet

they continue in their zealous efforts.

These liberal attacks remind me of the Christian student who was condescendingly told

by a professor that the crossing of the Red Sea by the Israelites was no great miracle. He

explained that the meaning of the Red Sea is Reed Sea and that this sea was made up of reeds

and therefore the depth would only be a couple of feet at the most. The student got excited and

said, "Hallelujah!"

The professor was taken back and curiously inquired, "Why are you excited about that?"

He responded, "Why that is a greater miracle yet. Imagine God drowning the Egyptian army in

water that was only a couple of feet deep!"

17

Throughout history we have witnessed liberals creating greater miracles by their relent-

less pursuit of explaining away the miracles they find so objectionable in the Bible. In their

attempts at being "modern" they end up with what many of us what consider "fantastic." It takes

more faith to believe in their concocted explanations than it does to believe the Bible.

Experiential-Expressive Theory

Much of liberalism contends that experience provides a foundational resource for

Christian theology. This teaches that all the world religions are essentially the same. The main

difference is that they are expressed very differently. Thus Buddha, Mohammed and other

religious leaders have the same claim as Jesus. This frees Christianity from the "scandal of

particularity" (the belief that Jesus is the only way, truth, and lifethe only bridge to find salvation).

Such a theology is basically human responses to the same religious experience often

called "a core experience of the transcendent." Therefore it is the task of theology to reflect upon

this common human experience since the same experience underlies all religions. This subjective

theology with its emphasis on religious experience fails because, as George Lindbeck argues, "It

is difficult or impossible to specify its distinctive features, and yet unless this is done, the

assertion of commonality becomes logically and empirically vacuous."5 There is little empirical

evidence for a "common core experience" throughout human history. The legitimacy for such a

theological position is virtually impossible to verify.

POSTMODERN THEOLOGY

One of the more positive developments in theology in recent years is the surge of interest

in the developing concept of "narrative theology." This theology brings emphasis to the

narrative literary form which unquestionably dominates Scripture. The origin of this emerging

theology logically goes back to Karl Barth who gave emphasis and meaning to Scripture as "the

story of God" and H. Richard Niebuhr whose book The Meaning of Revelation emphasized the

revelation of God in history and saw that narratives were an especially appropriate way of

expressing that revelation. God chose to become revealed in history and historical forms (such as

in Israel's exodus from Egypt and the history of Jesus Christ). This theology recognizes that both

the Old Testament and the New Testament bear witness to the fact that the literary form most

appropriate to express God's involvement and revelation in human history was narrativea story.

Since the Enlightenment of the eighteenth century with its emphasis upon generally

available rational truths, the insights of God's revelation in narrative form have been widely

neglected. The Enlightenment reduced theology to general rational concepts and thus showed an

almost total disregard for the narrative quality of the biblical writings. General principles which

could be established by reason and logic pushed the narrative form into virtual oblivion. The

modern and postmodern theology of our day is a clear witness to this devolution of revelation

that is couched in narratives.

18

Rudolph Bultmann's program of "demythologization" attempted to extract the timeless

significance of Jesus Christ by rescuing Him from the scriptural narratives concerning Him. By

getting to the "real" Jesus as proclaimed by the preaching event, the scriptural Jesus was

jettisoned from the narrative account as given in the biblical record. Thus narratives were set

aside to allow the demythologized Jesus (the Christ of faith) to emerge in existential encounter.

With the demise of the radical theology of the 1960's epitomized by the "death of God"

movement, the time was ripe for the reconstruction of faith which found the key in narrative

theology. Yale theologian Hans Frei in his book The Eclipse of Biblical Narrative set the stage

for this new theological movement. Other "postliberal" theologians who have been influential in

this movement have been Yale Divinity School scholars George Lindbeck and Ronald Thiemann

as well as James Gustafson, Robert Alter, and Stanley Hauerwas.

This theology has gained force because narrative is the main type of literature in the

Bible. It takes various forms such as the Old Testament histories, the gospel accounts of the

history of Jesus, and the parables which Jesus Himself told. It makes sense, therefore, to

approach theology from a narrative point of view, rather than a more theoretical approach, as it

lends itself more likely to faithful adherence to the scriptural record. The creeds and the

confessions of the church illustrate this point as their affirmation of faith in Jesus Christ is an

affirmation in the narrative account of Jesus' birth, ministry, trial, crucifixion, death, resurrection,

and ascension. What we find in the biblical record is a continuous story which centers on the

person of Jesus Christ, His identity and significance.6

This narrative approach rescues modern, postmodern, and conservative theology from

abstraction. It focuses on a story, a vivid account of something that really happened. Such an

approach lends itself to imagination, realism, personal involvementso often lacking in theology.

Narrative theology reminds us that God has acted in history, that He invaded our world of

time and space to meet us where we are. God became involved in our life.

Stanley Hauerwas has shown the ethical implications of narrative theology as he has

argued that the gospel narratives set a paradigm of behavior which all believers are to imitate.

Ethics becomes grounded in real life as it looks to the real-life situations of first century Palestine

and patterns its attitudes and behavior according to the life and ministry of Jesus of Nazareth.7

Narrative theology points to narration as a fitting structure which allows the reader to see

the story from God's perspective. As he sees the story unfold he comes to appreciate the interplay

between human ignorance or misunderstanding of the situation and its reality. Job is a case in

point. By paying close attention to the narrative we find ourselves in that tension where we see

and feel what Job must be going through and at the same time we have the point of view of the

Sovereign God of the universe. Narrative is the most natural and thus best way to enter into the

biblical situation.

19

Although at first it may seem that this theological approach is conducive only to

conservative theology, a closer look will show that this is not necessarily so. The limitation of

this theological approach is that its emphasis on the narrative form does not necessarily mean

that it is the only legitimate, authoritative story. It does not, by and in itself, exclude other stories

(such as those of Buddhism, Hinduism and Islam) from being as valid.

Narrative theology also tends to so focus on the formnarration as a literary structure of Scripturethat it tends to ignore the all important question of truth. How is fiction and history distinguished since they both contain narrative structures? The very structure that is most loyal to

the form and shape the biblical record takes is also the structure that easily lends itself to other

religious stories as equally valid.

LEGITIMATE DEMYTHOLOGIZING

The demythologized (stripped of myth) Jesus of Rudolf Bultmann and liberalism is a

pathetic figure in that He is a mild, gentle human being who would offend no one. Or He is a

revolutionary who, instead of being sent by His Father, came on His own to set things straight.

Such a Jesus fostered a vaguely humanistic ethic as liberals have approached Jesus cafeteria

stylethey picked and chose what they liked and left the rest. Dorothy Sayers rightly reminds us:

"We cannot blink the fact that gentle Jesus meek and mild was so stiff in His

opinions and so inflammatory in His language that he was thrown out of church,

stoned, hunted from place to place, and finally gibbeted as a firebrand and a

public danger. Whatever His peace was, it was not the peace of an amiable

indifference; and He said in so many words that what He brought with Him

was fire and sword."8

A Jesus demythologized of His divine nature is no Jesus at all! He certainly is not the

Jesus we are confronted by in the pages of Holy Scripture. Such a Jesus is an empty suit.

Bultmann is right in the need for demythologizing Jesus. But what Jesus needs to be

demythologized of is the liberal picture of the delicate and unmanly, but well meaning human

being who couldn't hurt a fly, or as in a few cases, the revolutionary human being out on His own

mission.

FUNDAMENTALISM

The Jesus of fundamentalism is also a distorted figure. A. W. Tozer perceptively wrote:

That while the liberals lost Jesus in the wonder of the world, fundamentalists lost Jesus in the

wonder of the Word.9

20

Fundamentalists have been guilty of bibliolatry. The Bible has become an end in itself

rather than a witness to the Person of Jesus Christ. The Bible, rather than Jesus, has become

the object of worship. In the process fundamentalists have become mean-spirited legalists whose

"Jesus" delights more in justice than mercy. This Jesus is quick to judge and consign people to

hell with few tears to spare. He has a list of dos and don'ts by which He measures people's

spirituality. Tozer sadly admitted while the Jesus of fundamentalism is strong, He is hardly

beautiful. Philosopher and theologian E. John Carnell pointed out that fundamentalism began as

a movement but disintegrated into a mentality. Such a mentality is not surprising of a people who

lost Jesus in the wonder of the Word. After all, ". . . the letter kills, but the Spirit gives life"

(2 Cor. 3:6).

It is my belief that the Jesus of evangelicalism comes the nearest theologically to the

portrait we find in the Bible. When it comes to lifestyle, evangelicals have nothing to brag about

as they have become increasingly secular. While they have, on the whole, tenaciously fought for

the doctrine of biblical authority they have also failed to bend their lives to that very authority.

In their intense search for respectability, success and worldly acclaim they have ignored theology

and biblical fidelity and thus lost their integrity, spiritual power and influence.

EVANGELICALISM

While for the most part evangelicals have not been guilty of bibliolatry, they have been

guilty of spiritual sluggishness and mental laziness (except in the arena of theology and

biblical studies where they have made tremendous strides in the last 40 years). They have been

careless in their "discipleship" and have found themselves numbed by apathy or drunk with

power. Witness the sad parade of TV evangelists!

In the name of Jesus evangelicals have felt free to sell "easy believism" or "cheap grace"

which German theologian and martyr, Dietrich Bonhoeffer, described as

". . . the preaching of forgiveness without requiring repentance, baptism without

church discipline, communion without confession. . . . grace without discipleship,

grace without the cross, grace without Jesus Christ living and incarnate."10

Most of all, evangelicals have sold themselves (just listen to their backscratching

introductions of each other and their grabbing for and use of honorary degrees). Pride has been

the name of the game. Hardly good representatives of the humble Nazarene!

Liberalism has lost its relevance because they made relevance, rather than truth, an end in

and of itself. Fundamentalism has also become irrelevant because of being intellectually and

socially reactionary and religiously pharisaical. Evangelicalism has lost its integrity in the

prideful pursuit for respectability and power. The Jesus of all these "movements" or "mentalities"

must be demythologized. We must see the Jesus presented to us in the pages of Scripture.

21

MODERNITY

German theologian Wolfhart Pannenberg in his book, Jesus-God and Man, explains the

modernistic trend in our educational institutions which has devastatingly undermined any

semblance of biblical authority:

". . . there is now an insurmountable coalition between the Enlightenment idea

that it is the subject who defines reality and the universities that are now

structured not only to make this idea normative but also to make its orthodox

alternative unacceptable.

In twentieth-century universities, especially in America, the fact that confession

is unwanted is communicated in a number of ways. There has been a trend

(which peaked in the 1960s) toward replacing departments of theology with

departments of religious studies. The new script for study is human experience,

not the teaching of the Bible or, for that matter, of the Church. This script

encompasses all human experience in all of its religious shades; it is no longer

tolerable to restrict academic considerations to what is Christian or Western. The

method of study is now scientific, objective, and comparative; the starting point

is the assumption that all religions are works of human interpretation and that no

one religion has 'the truth.' And, because the study is conducted under the aegis

of the social scientists rather than that of the clergy or theologians, the credibility

of the whole undertaking requires that it take place not in the context of the old

spirit of belief but rather in the context of the most audacious, irreverent, and

skeptical questions, even if the result is to create a maze through which

befuddled students will not easily find a way. Unhappily, the demand for

pluralistic values, to which unstinting support is given in these departments,

itself invariably becomes an unyielding orthodoxy. Faculty in many of these

departments will not tolerate those whose views are not pluralistic."11

Robert Hutchins, former President of the University of Chicago, has cynically defined

our modern university as a series of separate schools and departments held together by a central

heating system. There is no longer a coherent philosophy.

In his book, The Closing of the American Mind, Allan Bloom points out that the

Enlightenment substituted nature for the divine authority of God as its supreme reality. Modern

man has abandoned both God and nature and thus ended up with himself as the reference

point. Thus our highest value is opennessto anything and everything. This has led to what professor Bloom calls the "democratic personality," which is receptive to "whoever" or

"whatever."12

22

Such relativistic "open-mindedness" is nothing less than nonsensical empty-mindedness.

There is no longer any standard by which to judge right or wrong, good or evil. The end result is

nihilism where the external becomes formless and the internal becomes empty. It is a reminder

of what Solomon stated in his attempt to find meaning and purpose in life apart from God:

"Vanity of vanities, all is vanity" (Ecc 1:2).

The philosophy departments of our universities have come to dominate intellectual life in

academia. These departments have come to be to the universities what the theology departments

had been in the older colleges prior to the civil war. Once theology became marginalized, truth

quickly became relativized with the expected result of no standard of authority other than the

latest theory advanced by those who at any given moment wield the greatest influence.

If the Bible is no longer authoritative then what can we know of Jesus since it is the Bible,

according to Jesus Himself, which "testifies to Him" (Jn 5:39)? If Jesus is not the Jesus of the

Bible what Jesus is He? The liberals, whose theological correctness is skepticism, proceed to

point us in the confusing direction we should go to find a demythologized, reconstructed "Jesus."

CULTS

These purveyors of erroneous doctrines are also members of cults who in their blind and

uncritical allegiance fervently follow an authoritarian and often dictatorial leadership which

pontificates their narrow dogma. The leaders are frequently men and women who claim that they

in some unique way represent God to their disciples. Some claim to be a "messiah," if not

outright "the Messiah." Others claim to be the interpreter of God's mind and Word. Their

attitude is "I know what's best for you."

Such arrogant and confident claims attract confused and perplexed people who are

looking for certainty in a world drowning in uncertainty. Fear and guilt are ingeniously and

forcefully used to totally dominate the lives of its followers. Sadly, allegiance to the leader and

the cult becomes so pronounced that followers are ready to die to show their loyalty as in the

case of the followers of Jim Jones and David Koresh.

We must be alert! Peter and Paul both warned of those who would be deceived:

"But there were also false prophets among the people, just as there will be false

teachers among you. They will secretly introduce destructive heresies, even

denying the sovereign Lord who bought thembringing swift destruction on themselves" (2 Pe 2:1-2).

"The Spirit clearly says that in later times some will abandon the faith and

follow deceiving spirits and things taught by demons. Such teachings

come from hypocritical liars, whose consciences have been seared with a

hot iron" (1 Ti 4:1-2).

23

THE CALL TO SEEK AND BATTLE FOR THE TRUTH

In this desperate spiritual warfare against the powers of darkness it is imperative that we

arm ourselves for the battle. The apostle Paul warns us:

"But I am afraid that just as Eve was deceived by the serpent's cunning, your

minds may somehow be led astray from your sincere and pure devotion to

Christ" (2 Co 11:3).

With spiritual confusion as the norm of the day, we Christians must rise above the

relativistic, humanistic philosophies and outlandish cults that permeate society with the voice of

absolute truth. Jesus offered such:

"You will know the truth, and the truth will make you free" (Jn 8:32).

Many Christians have come to believe that it is wrong to judge. For many this is based on

Jesus' warning:

"Do not judge, or you too will be judged. For in the same way you judge others,

you will be judged, and with the measure you use, it will be measured to you."

(Mt 7:1-2)

This, however, does not mean that it is always wrong to judge people under any

circumstances. If so, then why did Jesus tell us five verses later not to give sacred things to dogs

and pearls to swine? How can you decide who is a dog or who is a swine unless you judge?

What Jesus is saying is that when you judge othersas everyone mustbe aware that the same measuring stick you use for others will be used for you.

So it is not wrong to listen carefully to what is being said behind the pulpit. Paul

encouraged this:

"Two or three prophets should speak and others should weigh carefully what

is said" (1 Co 14:29).

To those who would argue that this only applies in the case of prophecy, Luke replies:

"Now the Bereans were of more noble character than the Thessalonians, for they

received the message with great eagerness and examined the Scriptures every

day to see if what Paul said was true" (Ac 17:11).

God loves truth seekers--people who so love the truth that they will not automatically

receive something as truth just because someone said it, no matter what reputation the person had

(by this time Paul was considered a solid leader and teacher).

24

From these passages we see that even prophets, apostles and teachers make mistakes or

go beyond the revelation God has given them. That is where the community of believers is so

important. God has given us the responsibility to test everything:

"Dear friends, do not believe every spirit, but test the spirits to see whether they

are from God, because many false prophets have gone out into the world" (1 Jn 4:1).

"Test everything. Hold on to the good. Avoid every kind of evil" (1 Th 5:21-22).

Fakes know how to use religious terminology. They have all the right phrases and cliches

and thus sound so pious. They use such words as salvation, resurrection, judgment, prayer, etc.

When they depart from historic Christianity, they seem to find a way to convince others that their

"interpretation" is right. The believers of Galatia evidently were seduced for Paul said:

"I am astonished that you are so quickly deserting the one who called you by the

grace of Christ and are turning to a different gospel--which is really not gospel

at all" (Gal 1:6-7).

As evangelicals we have passively witnessed, to our shame, the tragic demise of

theology, doctrine, truth. It is vital that we wake up and restore theology to its rightful and

historic placeat the center, at the coreof the life and ministry of the church. Only then is there hope for society to get back to its religious roots and ethical moorings.

25

2. ORTHODOXY AND HERESY

26

DEFECTIVE VIEWS CONCERNING THE PERSON OF JESUS CHRIST

Errors of the Early Centuries

The issue as to the nature of the Person of Jesus of Nazareth engendered all kinds of

philosophical and theological speculation throughout church history. This was also true of the

early development of the Christian religion.

The early church's teaching that Jesus Christ is both God and man created a problem as to

the nature of the union of the two natures. Many errors crept in probably because there was a

failure to make a clear distinction between His two natures and to emphasize the unity of His

person.

Several early positions were branded "heretical" by the early church. The word "heresy"

(Greek hairesis) means literally a "choice." The word has three primary meanings in the New

Testament:

1. A chosen course of thought and action. This means a party or sect such as the

Sadducees (Ac 24:5,14; 28:22).

2. Dissensions arising from diverse opinions and aims (1 Co 11:19; Gal 5:20).

3. Doctrinal departures from revealed truth (Titus 3:10).

It was heresy of this third type against which the apostles vigorously warned the church

(Ac 20:29; Php 3:2).

GNOSTICISM

Gnosticism was one of the most dangerous heresies of the first two centuries of the

church. Its primary feature is that redemption is found through mystical knowledge rather than

faith. When combined with certain elements from Christianity, Gnosticism proved extremely

attractive. In fact, it became so widespread that by the beginning of the third century A. D. most

of the intellectual Christian congregations (where a significant number of parishioners had a

basic education) throughout the Roman Empire were to some degree affected by it. One historian

referred to its growth in the second century as "the swiftness of an epidemic over the Church

from Syria to Gaul."1

Gnosticism was not originally a heresy in that it was not a perversion of Christian truth.

Rather it came from without. Only as it worked its way into the Christian Church did it become

intensely heretical.

27

This anti-Christian influence was not a homogeneous system of either religion or

philosophy. Rather it was highly syncretistic. It was an attempt to found a universal religion

which would take advantage of contributions from many sources and thus to "acclimatize

Christianity in a popular religious trend of the day and to show it to be consistent with it and a

fulfillment of it."2

Gnosticism embraced many widely diversified sects holding opinions drawn from a great

variety of sources such as Greek, Jewish, Parsic (Persia), Indian (India); philosophies (especially

Plato and Philo), religions, theosophies and mysteries. These schools of philosophy were oriental

in general character.

There were two primary features to the teachings of Gnosticism. One is that there is

redemption through Christ, but it was redemption from matter rather than redemption of mankind

from sin. This was so because their teaching of a dualism between the world of the spirit and

the world of matter. The world of the spirit was entirely good and consisted of the heavenly

realm which would include the mindthe psychic and spiritual aspects of man. The world of matter, however, was entirely evil because it consisted of the earthly, that which belongs to the

flesh, the body, etc.

The other primary feature was that this redemption was accomplished primarily through

knowledge, as the name denotes (Gnosticism comes from the Greek root gnosis which means

"knowledge"), rather than through faith. This knowledge which was essential to "salvation" was

of a kind of which the ordinary believer was incapable of achieving. Only the "enlightened"

could achieve it. Thus Gnosticism belonged to the intellectually and spiritually elite.

The unbiblical dualism engendered five main errors:

1. Man's body is evil since it is made of matter (earthly). This is in contrast to God, who is purely spirit and therefore good.

2. Salvation or redemption is the escape from the flesh, the bodyfrom physical evil. The human race is essentially akin to the divine, being a spark of heavenly light

imprisoned in a material body. This escape is made through a special knowledge

rather than faith in Christ.

3. Jesus Christ's true humanity was denied for two reasons:

(1) The Docetists (from the Greek dokeo which means "to seem") taught that Christ only seemed to have a body, and

(2) The Cerinthianists (named after its most prominent spokesman, Cerinthius) taught that Christ (the Anointed One) came upon or joined the man Jesus at baptism and left Him just

before He died.

28

Thus the Christ was neither born as a man nor suffered as a man. While the man Jesus

suffered and rose again, the Christ remained impassible as a spiritual being.

In this way they solved the difficulty of the connection between the highest spiritual

agency (the Christ) and sinful corporeal matter (the human Jesus with a body), which was

involved in the doctrine of the Incarnation and Passion. This view is the background of much of

1 John (1:1; 2:22; 4:2-3).

4. Since the body was considered evil, it was to be treated harshly (asceticism). This

ascetic form of Gnosticism is the background of part of the letter to the Colossians

(2:21-23).

5. This dualism of spirit (which is good) and matter (which is evil) paradoxically led to

licentiousness (libertinism) as well as asceticism. The reasoning was that, since matter

was considered evil, the breaking of God's law was of no moral and spiritual consequence. The

locus of sin was found in matter rather than in the breaking of God's holy law (1 Jn 3:4).3

Gnosticism also taught that the Old Testament and New Testament were revelations of

two different deities. They regarded the God of the Jews as far inferior to the Supreme Being,

called by them the Abyss. The God of the Old Testament was the creator of the world, often

referred to as the Demiurge. Many Gnostics (especially Marcion and his followers--

"Marcionites") considered the God of the Old Testament as merely great, harsh, and rigorous,

and the God of the New Testament to be wholly gooda God of love. Some Gnostic sects considered the God of the Old Testament as being totally alien from and opposed to the supreme

God; others considered Him merely as a subordinate power, inferior but not hostile to the

supreme God and acting as His unconscious organ or agent.4

The Gnostics justified their beliefs by appealing to Christian and Jewish writings which

were allegorically interpreted. Gnosticism also claimed to have authoritative gospels and epistles

of their own. These were based on the supposed teachings of Jesus which had not been

committed to writing, but which had been handed down secretly through oral tradition.

This provided a powerful impetus for the formation of a New Testament canon of

Scripture to distinguish between spurious and genuine Scriptures.

Jesus Christ is not the God-Man, wholly God and fully man, but an eon, an angelic being,

though the highest in order of all generations of angelic beings (there were at least 30 orders of

eons according to Valentius, the most influential of all Gnostics). This makes Jesus Christ a very

special person, but hardly the God-Man of the New Testament.

29

The Apollinarians denied the integrity of the human nature by saying that the eternal Son,

or Logos, supplied the place of human intelligence. Nestorius denied the unity of his person by

separating the two natures into two personalities. Eutyches, denied the essential integrity of both

natures by confusing them, that is, running them together, so as to make a third nature separate

and different from either the human or divine nature.

Gnosticism did not have a well knit, unified organization. They were too divided and too

varied to be brought together. Some remained within the existing churches, teaching their

doctrines, until they were expelled as heretics. Others formed themselves into separate

congregations. These congregations had special rites which resembled the mystery cults which

were widespread in the Roman Empire of that time.

Gnosticism strikes at the very root of Christianity. The Person of Godthe Godhead, the Trinity, the unity of the Old Testament and the New Testament as Holy Scripture, the personality

and free will of human beings, the existence of moral evil, salvation by grace through faith alone,

the incarnation of Jesus Christ, the redemption of Christ, His resurrectionthe whole significance of His Person and workall this is denied. Such is the spirit of Gnosticism.

The Gnosticism addressed in the New Testament was an early form of heresy. The

intricately developed system of Gnosticism took place in the second and third centuries.

In addition to I John and Colossians there also seems to be allusions to early Gnosticism

in 1 Corinthians, 1 Timothy (6:20) and 2 Timothy, Titus and 2 Peter.

Most of the heresies in the early church revolved not around Christ's deity, but His

humanity. Most people believed that He was God, while some questioned whether He truly

became man. The apostle John wrote his first letter to refute arguments against Jesus' humanity,

not His deity:

"Dear friends, do not believe every spirit, but test the spirits to see whether they

are from God, because many false prophets have gone out into the world.

This is how you can recognize the Spirit of God: Every spirit that acknowledges

that Jesus Christ has come in the flesh is from God, but every spirit that does

not acknowledge Jesus is not from God. This is the spirit of the antichrist,

which you have heard is coming and even now is already in the world" (1 Jn 4:1-3).

ARIANISM

Not until A.D. 318 did a recognized church leader deny Christ's deity. Arius (A.D. 250-

336), a presbyter in the church of Alexandria, taught the most subtle and damaging teaching of

the third and fourth centuries.

30

Arius' teaching began from the position that God the Father is unique and distinct. He

alone is ingenerate, everlasting, uncreated, true, immortal, wise, good, sovereign. God the Father,

therefore, could not possibly have communicated His essence to any other, for that would

remove the great gulf between Creator and creature, and thus would in effect be a reversion to

polytheism. This means that Arius' Supreme Being was God the Father, not the triune God

(Trinity).

The Son of God, by contrast, was a being created by the will and power of God the

Father. Therefore He was not "without beginning." He thus denied the preaching of Pope

Alexander of Alexandria who stated:

"God always, the Son always; at the same time the Father, at the same time the

Son, the Son co-exists with God, unbegotten; he is ever-begotten, he is not born

by begetting; neither by thought nor by any moment of time does God precede

the Son; God always. Son always, the Son exists from God himself."5

Arius said that Christ was simply the first of created beings, and through Him all other

things are made. Christ was not actually God. Since He was created He could not be God. The

fact that He was created, says Arius, made Him subordinate to the Father. In anticipation of the

glory that He was to receive, finally He is called the Logos, the Son, only begotten.

Jesus as the Son of God was treated as a special creature in the sense that the Father

created Him first and for the specific function of undertaking the rest of the creation. His major

role was that of being God's servant in the work of creation and (to a lesser extent) in

revelation.

Arius' teachings raised a furor in the churchlargely because it had not been the church's commonly held view. The Council of Nicea met seven years later (A.D. 325) to refute this view

and eventually expelled Arius as a heretic. As a result Arianism went underground for a period

of thirty years. It enjoyed a resurgence between A.D. 353 and 378. After this Arianism splintered

into more radical groups (also more vocal in their opposition to orthodox Christianity) such as

the Anomoeans or Eunomians with Aetius (A.D. 370) as its leader and later Eunomius (A.D.

395) as his successor.6

CREEDS & DOGMAS

The creeds and dogmas of the church are not a set of arbitrary regulations invented a

priori by a committee of theologians enjoying an intellectual endeavor. Most of them were

hammered out under pressure of urgent practical necessity to provide an answer to heresy.

The creed of Nicea states:

"I believe in one God the Father Almighty, Maker of heaven and earth, and of

all things visible and invisible;

31

"And in one Lord Jesus Christ, the only-begotten Son of God, begotten of His

Father before all worlds; God of God; Light of Light; very God of Very God;

Begotten, not made; Being of one substance with the Father, by whom all things

were made; Who for us men, and for our salvation, came down from heaven.

And was incarnate by the Holy Ghost of the Virgin Mary, and was made man;

And was crucified also for us under Pontius Pilate. He suffered and was buried;

And the third day He rose again according to the Scriptures; And ascended into

heaven; And sitteth on the right hand of the Father. And He shall come again with

glory to judge both the quick and the dead; Whose kingdom shall have no end.

And I believe in the Holy Ghost; The Lord and Giver of Life; Who proceedeth

from the Father and the Son; Who with the Father and the Son together is

worshiped and glorified; Who spake by the prophets. And I believe one Holy

Catholic and Apostolic Church. I acknowledge one Baptism for the remission of

sins. And I look for the Resurrection of the dead; and the Life of the world to

come. Amen."

The key phrasethat Christ was of one substance (homoousios) with the Fatherstood solidly opposed to the Arian belief that the Son (as well as any other creature) was alien to the

Father's substance.

Modern Errors

The old dictum that those who do not know history are doomed to repeat it is certainly

true when it comes to church history and heresy. The diagram below illustrates the fact that

present-day heresies emanate from heresies that were disputed long ago.

______________________________________________________________________________

GNOSTIC PROTOTYPE ARIAN PROTOTYPE

______________________________________________________________________________

Christian Science and Jehovah's Witnesses

Unity School of Christianity Mormonism

Mind & Healing Sciences Unification Church

Transcendental Meditation (TM) The Way International

New Age Movement Armstrongism

______________________________________________________________________________

Modern errors regarding the natures in Christ center mostly in denying that Christ is

actually God. Liberal theologians and others who deny the deity of Christ are only reviving the

old Arian heresy of the third and fourth centuries.

32

Orthodox Doctrine

The orthodox doctrine concerning the natures of Jesus Christ was drawn up at the

Council of Chalcedon in A.D. 451.

"Therefore, following the holy Fathers, we all with one accord teach men to

acknowledge one and the same Son, our Lord Jesus Christ, at once complete in

Godhead and complete in manhood, truly God and truly man, consisting also of

a reasonable soul and body; of one substance [omoousios] with the Father as

regards his Godhead, and at the same time of one substance with us as regards

his manhood; like us in all respects, apart from sin; (2) as regards his Godhead,

begotten of the Father before the ages, but yet as regards his manhood begotten,

for us men and for our salvation, of Mary the Virgin, the God-bearer [theotokos];

(3) one and the same Christ, Son, Lord, Only-begotten, recognized IN TWO NATURES, WITHOUT CONFUSION, WITHOUT CHANGE, WITHOUT

DIVISION, WITHOUT SEPARATION; the distinction of natures being in no

way annulled by the union, but rather the characteristics of each nature being

preserved and coming together to form one person and subsistence [hupostasis],

not as parted or separated into two persons, but one and the same Son and Only-

begotten God the Word, Lord Jesus Christ; even as the prophets from earliest

times spoke of him, and our Lord Jesus Christ himself taught us, and the creed of

the Fathers has handed down to us."

This creed is a refutation of both Arianism and Apollinarianism. The reference to Jesus as

"complete in Godhead and complete in manhood, truly God and truly Man" is the basic

affirmation of Chalcedon, but the reference to "a reasonable soul and body" is a refutation of

Apollinarianism which denied that Jesus had a human mind.

The word "substance" in the affirmation that "our Lord Jesus Christ is of one substance

(omoousios) with the Father as regards his Godhead, and at the same time of one substance with

us as regards his manhood" as it is used here, does not mean "stuff," as we are inclined to

understand it. In fact, it meant virtually the opposite when it was written into this creedal

statement. The "substance" of something was its essence, or what makes it what it isapart from its varying appearances to us.

This Chalcedonian definition of who Jesus is tells us that He has two natures but that He

is one Personfully God, fully man, one Person.

The Formula of Concord states:

"We believe, teach, and confess that the Son of God, although from eternity He has

been a particular, distinct, entire divine person, and thus, with the Father and the

Holy Ghost, true, essential, perfect God, nevertheless, in the fullness of time

assumed also human nature into the unity of His person, not in such a way that

33

there are now two persons or two Christs, but that Christ Jesus is now in one

person at the same time true, eternal God, born of the Father from eternity,

and a true man, born of the most blessed Virgin Mary, as it is written Rom. 9:5:

'Of whom, as concerning the flesh, Christ came, who is over all, God blessed

forever.' Hence Christ is not two distinct persons, but one single person,

notwithstanding that two distinct natures are found in Him."

The Westminster Confession, now more than three centuries old states:

"The Son of God, the second Person in the Trinity, being very and eternal God,

of one substance, and equal with the Father did, when the fullness of time was

come, take upon Him man's nature. . . ."

In the one person Jesus Christ, therefore, there are two natures: a human nature and a

divine nature. Each is found in its completeness and integrity, and these two natures are

organically and indissolubly united, yet so that no third nature is formed thereby.

Summary of Creeds

The Council of Nicea (A.D. 325) produced the Nicene Creed, affirming the essential oneness between the Father and the Son.

The Council of Constantinople (A.D. 381) confirmed the Nicene Creed and clarified the relationship of the Holy Spirit to the Father and to the Son.

The Council of Ephesus (A.D. 431) defined the unity of the two natures of Christ.

The Council of Chalcedon (A.D. 451) produced the Chalcedonian Creed that defended the integrity of the two natures of Christ against teachings that would have

minimized the human nature.

The Two Natures of Christ

The union of the two natures in Christ is unique and incomparable. It is both personal (or

"hypostatic") and an ontological union (union at the level of being or essenceat the deepest level). The Angelic Doctor, Thomas Aquinas, rightly observed that this union is neither

accidental nor essential. This is true in the sense that it is not essential as we find between the

persons of the Trinity. After all, the Trinity was a reality before the incarnation, before the

joining of the two natures into one person.

This union, however, is profoundly personal since the two natures coexist in one Person.

It does not signify a union whereby humanity is mingled with deity so that a third entity results;

instead it entails the intimate and perpetual conjunction of two natures into unity with one

34

person, with each nature retaining its distinctive properties. This hypostatic union represents an

ontological union since human being at the very deepest level of humanity participates in, and is

directed by, divine being. Yet the humanity of Jesus Christ is never dislodged or displaced by

His divinity; both natures remain intact without any confusion or conversion of one into the

other.

John Calvin compared the two natures of Christ to the two eyes of man:

"Each eye can have its vision separately; but when we are looking at anything . . .

our vision, which in itself is divided, joins up and unites in order to give itself

as a whole to the object that is put before it."8

Throughout the centuries there has been an unbroken chain of creedal testimony to the

Godhead of Jesus Christ.

This form of the doctrine is generally accepted among orthodox theologians. The

questions arise, however, from the mystery of the union of the two natures. How can a person

with two separate natures still be one person? How are they joined? How do they function?

Does each nature have a will and consciousness of its own?

Jesus Christ was just One Person

All attributes and powers were ascribed to just one person. Whatever He did, whether

from the human nature (e.g. "Jesus wept"), or from the divine nature (e.g. Jesus multiplying the

loaves and fish), was ascribed to just one person.

British New Testament scholar F. F. Bruce says that when John says "The Word became

flesh and dwelt among us" he was asserting that the "one Who had His being eternally within the

unity of the Godhead became man at a point in time, without relinquishing His oneness with

God."9

Christ continually refers to Himself as a single person; He always speaks of Himself as "I".

We can understand salvation only when we understand that Jesus Christ was and is the God-Man, not just the Man of God.

Christian consciousness recognizes Jesus Christ as a single undivided personality.

Both human and divine qualities and acts may be ascribed to the God-Man under either of His names.

"The Blood of God (Ac 20:28). \

35

"They crucified the Lord of Glory" (1 Co 2:9).

"The virgin shall bring forth a son . . . He shall be called the Son of the Most High" (Lk 1:31-32).

"Even as the Son of Man, who is in heaven" (Jn 3:13).

With regard to Christ having two wills there were times when Jesus expressed the will of

unfallen humanity; and other times when He expressed the will of deity (e.g., Jesus said,

"Nevertheless not My will but Yours be done"Lk 22:42). This obviously expresses human will. Again He said, "Your sins be forgiven" (Mt 9:2,5)a statement that could never be attributed to man as only God can forgive sins. It seems that every single decision stemmed from

either the "will" of His human nature or the "will" of His divine nature or a blending of both.

Therefore it is correct to think of Jesus having two wills.

With regard to Christ having two consciousnesses, it is clear that there were times when

Jesus was conscious humanly speaking (e.g., Jesus said, "I thirst"Jn 19:28). On the other hand, Jesus said, "I and the Father are one" (10:30). Inasmuch as the Father was not human, He could

have been referring to His deity.

With regard to the exact nature of the union of the two natures, human nature found its

personality only in union with the divine nature. The human nature did not have a personality of

its own before Christ took it for Himself. In other words, the logos did not take on an already

developed personality. The two natures thus joined, constitutes one personal subsistence.

Furthermore it was God in the person of Christ who took upon Himself the nature of a

man; the union of the natures is thus theanthropic, God-Man. He had divine intelligence and

human intelligence. He had a divine will and a human will. He had a divine consciousness and

human consciousness.

Modern Cults

Mormonism views Jesus as a man who achieved great things. While they teach that

Jesus was a pre-existing spiritan unembodied spiritthey believe that about everyone. According to them Jesus' distinctiveness is not that He was God, but that He was God's first-

born spirit-child, He was the first of many since all human beings are spirit children prior to

their birth. "His humanity is to be recognized as real and ordinarywhatever happened to Him may happen to any of us." Thus he is often referred to as our "elder brother." According to

Mormonism, "Even though we can become a god just like Jesus," Jesus has shown to have

preeminence because of what He has accomplished.

36

"When God, 'the most intelligent' of the eternal intelligences, decided to

clothe the others with spiritual form, Christ was the first-begotten. Christ

was not eternally the Father's Son; He was not eternally pre-eminent. He

'the Firstborn Spirit Child,' and from that day forward He has had, in all

things, the preeminence."10

Although Mormons don't accept Jesus' deity or the doctrine of the trinity, they do

believe that Jesus was the Messiah:

"We hold that Jesus Christ was the one and only Being fitted to become the

Savior and Redeemer of the world, for the following reasons: (1) He is the

only sinless Man who has ever walked the earth. (2) He is the Only Begotten

of the Eternal Father in the flesh, and therefore the only Being born to earth

possessing in their fullness the attributes and power of both Godhood and

manhood. (3) He is the One who had been chosen in the primeval council of

the Gods and foreordained to this service."11

The "council of the Gods" are three separately and physically distinct Gods:

"Three personages composing the great presiding council of the universe have

revealed themselves to man: (1) God the eternal Father; (2) His son,

Jesus Christ; and (3) the Holy Ghost. That these three are held to be separate

individuals, physically distinct from each other, is demonstrated by the

accepted records of divine dealings with man."12

They refute the doctrine of the trinity as they further state: "This cannot rationally be

construed to mean that the Father, the Son, and the Holy Ghost are one in substance."13

Jehovah's Witnesses understand Jesus to be a created being who was given the status

of second-in-command: "A 'god', but not the Almighty God, who is Jehovah." Jesus is viewed

as "a created individual who is the second personage of the universe."14 He was "a god" as Satan

was said to be a god of this world. They believe that Jesus existed prior to His birth in

Bethlehem, but even in that pre-earthly state He was not true deity. Rather before coming to

earth He was the first created being, the archangel, Michael, the chief representative of God.

He is the highest of all creation:

"As he was the highest of all Jehovah's creation, so also he was the first, the

direct creation of God, the 'only begotten,' and then he, as Jehovah's power,

and in his name, created all thingsangels, principalities and powers, as well as the earthly creation."15

However exalted, the first