Heresy?

[Hans Deventer]

This morning, a guy in church came up to me saying he disagreed with my sermon because I said Jesus on the cross was God. He said that Jesus emptied himself and therefore became solely human, till He went back to heaven, where he became God again. So basically, Jesus on earth was not God.

I'm not as well informed on the Early Church as I should be, but this sounds like a variation of Arinism to me and hence, a proper heresy as condemned by the eucumenical councils of Nicea in 325 and Constantinopel in 381.

Is this correct?

[Jeff Borden]

It does sound like a variant of Arianism with a little Nestorianism tossed in as well.

[Benjamin Burch]

This morning, a guy in church came up to me saying he disagreed with my sermon because I said Jesus on the cross was God. He said that Jesus emptied himself and therefore became solely human, till He went back to heaven, where he became God again. So basically, Jesus on earth was not God.

I'm not as well informed on the Early Church as I should be, but this sounds like a variation of Arinism to me and hence, a proper heresy as condemned by the eucumenical councils of Nicea in 325 and Constantinopel in 381.

Is this correct?

Socianism.

[Hans Deventer]

Socianism.

I take that as a "yes".

[Benjamin Burch]

I take that as a "yes".

Well, it isn't really Arianism.

[Hans Deventer]

Well, it isn't really Arianism.

Well, I called a variation of Arinanism. Which seems to be the case.

[Benjamin Burch]

Well, I called a variation of Arinanism. Which seems to be the case.

Eh, I don't understand the connection. In Arianism Jesus is still the Incarnation of the Logos, and divine. In socianism, he isn't. So I've never understood why people say it is a variation of Arianism. It seems completely unrelated to me.

[Mike Schutz]

I think the more relevant point is that I have heard this preached- that Jesus, for a time on the cross, was not God. I heard it at a district camp meeting, preached by one of the more prominent evangelists in the denomination.

On the platform at the time was a well-known and well-respected academic theologian, who was also preaching at that camp meeting. I was at the camp with several students from ENC, who were serving as workers for the teen program. They immediately approached me, and then approached the academic theologian, wanting to know how such a thing could be preached.
I was pleased that the students recognized the problem, and not surprised by the response of the theologian. In essence, he said, "What can we do? Any attempt to address the issue will be seen as a battle between the scholars and the evangelists, and it will get real ugly real quick."

[Benjamin Burch]

I think the more relevant point is that I have heard this preached- that Jesus, for a time on the cross, was not God. I heard it at a district camp meeting, preached by one of the more prominent evangelists in the denomination.

On the platform at the time was a well-known and well-respected academic theologian, who was also preaching at that camp meeting. I was at the camp with several students from ENC, who were serving as workers for the teen program. They immediately approached me, and then approached the academic theologian, wanting to know how such a thing could be preached.
I was pleased that the students recognized the problem, and not surprised by the response of the theologian. In essence, he said, "What can we do? Any attempt to address the issue will be seen as a battle between the scholars and the evangelists, and it will get real ugly real quick."

Oh. My. Goodness. Gracious.

[Greg Farra]

What Ben said.

[Kyle Borger]

On my phone or I would add more. Sounds like a good theological discussion. Why would it be necessary for Jesus to not be God in human form? Does it limit God or reduce our image of God if Jesus as God was tempted?

This is new to me as I haven't heard that position before.

[Benjamin Burch]

On my phone or I would add more. Sounds like a good theological discussion. Why would it be necessary for Jesus to not be God in human form? ...This is new to me as I haven't heard that position before.

The idea that Jesus wasn't God on the cross comes from the false notion that God turned God's back on Jesus on the cross.

Other than that, there are plenty of other heresies which downplay the divine nature in Christ so as to protect the divine from humanity. Why? Certain conceptions of divinity are more important and more cherished to people than the actual soteriology of the Church.

Does it limit God or reduce our image of God if Jesus as God was tempted?

For some, yes. In fact, I've found that it is incredibly normal for me talk to Reformed Baptists who are Monothelites, believing that Jesus didn't possess a human will. Thus, There was no possibility of him sinning at all, and instead of a real victory of the divine nature lifting up the human nature, we're left with a game... for fear that we might bring the divine low. However, the incarnation is about the fact that the divine has already brought itself low, so as to raise us up.

[Doug Ward]

Hans, among the many isms, we can apply to this, this belief also seems to be at work within the community to whom 1 John is addressed. Jesus was not fully, physically human. No God worthy of worship would either have a physical body, or be a part of a physical body that dies. So the issue in 1 John is since God did not have a physical body, or did not fully reside in a physical body at death, then the truly spiritual are unaffected by the physical world. Therefore, whatever deeds are done in the body are not sinful. Thus, they claim to be without sin, since spiritually they are unsullied.

I only add this to highlight the folly, and potential dead ends this belief can lead to, whether in 90 A.D. or 2012.

[Kyle Borger]

The idea that Jesus wasn't God on the cross comes from the false notion that God turned God's back on Jesus on the cross.

Other than that, there are plenty of other heresies which downplay the divine nature in Christ so as to protect the divine from humanity. Why? Certain conceptions of divinity are more important and more cherished to people than the actual soteriology of the Church.



For some, yes. In fact, I've found that it is incredibly normal for me talk to Reformed Baptists who are Monothelites, believing that Jesus didn't possess a human will. Thus, There was no possibility of him sinning at all, and instead of a real victory of the divine nature lifting up the human nature, we're left with a game... for fear that we might bring the divine low. However, the incarnation is about the fact that the divine has already brought itself low, so as to raise us up.

Thanks Ben. By the way I appreciate your view even if you aren't Nazarene. Sure you will stir the pot from time to time, but I consider the discussions here as a part of my learning process.

Could this line of thinking follow those who simply can't see God as relational? It seems that Jesus became human to restore the relationship that was lost when we sin. There is an important connection between God becoming man and dying for us. I suppose some would say that God is too Holy and set apart to ever become like us, but that is the point God as man is how we have any hope to be as God intended.

[Benjamin Burch]

I suppose some would say that God is too Holy and set apart to ever become like us, but that is the point God as man is how we have any hope to be as God intended.

For you know the generous act of our Lord Jesus Christ, that though he was rich, yet for your sakes he became poor, so that by his poverty you might become rich. - 2 Corinthians 8:9

[Hans Deventer]

Hans, among the many isms, we can apply to this, this belief also seems to be at work within the community to whom 1 John is addressed. Jesus was not fully, physically human. No God worthy of worship would either have a physical body, or be a part of a physical body that dies. So the issue in 1 John is since God did not have a physical body, or did not fully reside in a physical body at death, then the truly spiritual are unaffected by the physical world. Therefore, whatever deeds are done in the body are not sinful. Thus, they claim to be without sin, since spiritually they are unsullied.

I only add this to highlight the folly, and potential dead ends this belief can lead to, whether in 90 A.D. or 2012.

This would point in the direction of some form of Gnosticism.

[Randy Wise]

This morning, a guy in church came up to me saying he disagreed with my sermon because I said Jesus on the cross was God. He said that Jesus emptied himself and therefore became solely human, till He went back to heaven, where he became God again. So basically, Jesus on earth was not God.

I'm not as well informed on the Early Church as I should be, but this sounds like a variation of Arinism to me and hence, a proper heresy as condemned by the eucumenical councils of Nicea in 325 and Constantinopel in 381.

Is this correct?

I don't think there was a problem with stating Jesus was God in your sermon.

I view Jesus as one in whom God's fullness dwells. The Father is in Him and the Father works/speaks through Him. Jesus testified to that fact. In that sense they are ONE. Hebrews 1 :God spoke to usby Jesus. When you seen the Son you have seen the mirror of the Father.

To me the Jesus who was occupied that human body. That human body died on the cross not Jesus who Lives forever by the Living Father in Him. To me Jesus expressed how He felt at that moment on the cross not the Father. I hope we believe Jesus is also the Son with feelings. Jesus certainly showed feelings/emotions as we read in the gospels. I do not accept that the Father turned His back at any time on His Son whom He loved. Like Joseph what happened (sold out by his brothers) was allowed to save lives and that act wasn't held against Israel.

[Dale Cozby]

Which is more of a miracle to have faith in? That Jesus was a man who died alone on a cross in weakness, suffering by His own will but dying by the will of men. OR The Almighty God, Creator of the Universe took on flesh, having the power to save Himself in an instant but willingly refusing to call on His angels and dying by the hands of sinful men.

I stand in awe of a God who would die like a man. More so than a man who would die like a god. But maybe that is just me.

[Bob Hunter]

I can hear it the music playing and the preacher making his last appeal before the altars are open...

"God walked out on Jesus so that he would never have to walk out on us."

[Billy Cox]

"What can we do? Any attempt to address the issue will be seen as a battle between the scholars and the evangelists, and it will get real ugly real quick."

But it's really fun to see where the term 'bully pulpit' came from.

[Steven Burton]

I can hear it the music playing and the preacher making his last appeal before the altars are open...

"God walked out on Jesus so that he would never have to walk out on us."

How do we know God won't repeat this if he walked out on his own son?

I am just picking on you now !

[Billy Cox]

Which is more of a miracle to have faith in? That Jesus was a man who died alone on a cross in weakness, suffering by His own will but dying by the will of men. OR The Almighty God, Creator of the Universe took on flesh, having the power to save Himself in an instant but willingly refusing to call on His angels and dying by the hands of sinful men.

I stand in awe of a God who would die like a man. More so than a man who would die like a god. But maybe that is just me.

So you think that the heretics of old just got a bad rap?

And for the record, I don't think Jesus could have saved himself from the cross.

[Dale Cozby]

So you think that the heretics of old just got a bad rap?

And for the record, I don't think Jesus could have saved himself from the cross.

He couldn't because He wouldn't. He would never leave the Father's will and thus He couldn't save Himself(because it would me leaving the will of the Father). In His flesh he didn't want to go to the cross, but in Spirit he did. Spirit wins. Semantics.

As far as heretics of old I care not. The neo-heretics are the ones that concern me.

[Steven Burton]

What I think is interesting is I have learned that most neo-heresy are just using old heresy with different language and an added twist.

[Nate Pruitt]

What I think is interesting is I have learned that most neo-heresy are just using old heresy with different language and an added twist.

As Solomon said, "there is nothing new under the Sun."

[David Graham]

I can hear it the music playing and the preacher making his last appeal before the altars are open...

"God walked out on Jesus so that he would never have to walk out on us."

Good heavens, I've never heard any thing so rediculous! I would hope that a Nazarene/Methodist evangelist wouldn't say anything like that!

[Benjamin Burch]

Good heavens, I've never heard any thing so rediculous! I would hope that a Nazarene/Methodist evangelist wouldn't say anything like that!

You've never heard that line before? "God turned his back on his Son so that he'd never have to turn his back on you!"



Check it at 1:45. This Orthodox Priest has heard it.

[Steven Burton]

You've never heard that line before? "God turned his back on his Son so that he'd never have to turn his back on you!"



Check it at 1:45. This Orthodox Priest has heard it.

You know he was Protestant before turning Orthodox right?

[Benjamin Burch]

You know he was Protestant before turning Orthodox right?

Yes, my point being, that in a discussion of atonement, this concept plays center stage for the "Protestant" side.

[Steven Burton]

Yes, my point being, that in a discussion of atonement, this concept plays center stage for the "Protestant" side.

Oh, I know I was trying to give you a hard time, and also give other a little background for this guys point in the same sentence. Looks like the add of right and question mark threw that the wrong way.

[Larry Parsons]

It was the blood of God that was shed on Calvary cross even for me.
thamks
Larry

[Steven Burton]

Yes, my point being, that in a discussion of atonement, this concept plays center stage for the "Protestant" side.

That is why I have been looking at older traditions lately.

[David Graham]

"God walked out on Jesus so that he would never have to walk out on us."

Thanks Ben, I have heard of the Penal Substitutionary Theory of the Atonement, and I guess the quote is a variant of this, but I've never heard of anyone using words like that up until now.

Having said that, the Orthodox priest is right in how he "uses" the chairs. Jesus came to earth not to condemn the world ( to turn his back on) but to save the world..... i.e. to provide atonement for all human sin and to offer all humanity a "face to face" encounter with God in Christ.

And while I'm happy to run with that to its ultimate conclusion in the salvation of everyone (remember I'm a Universalist sympathiser) I do believe that people will continue to turn their backs upon God and thus reject the salvation and resist the encounter with God which God in Christ offers. Hence hell is the place of our own choosing.

Great object lesson though, I may try and use it in the future.

[Benjamin Burch]

Thanks Ben, I have heard of the Penal Substitutionary Theory of the Atonement, and I guess the quote is a variant of this, but I've never heard of anyone using words like that up until now.

Having said that, the Orthodox priest is right in how he "uses" the chairs. Jesus came to earth not to condemn the world ( to turn his back on) but to save the world..... i.e. to provide atonement for all human sin and to offer all humanity a "face to face" encounter with God in Christ.

And while I'm happy to run with that to its ultimate conclusion in the salvation of everyone (remember I'm a Universalist sympathiser) I do believe that people will continue to turn their backs upon God and thus reject the salvation and resist the encounter with God which God in Christ offers. Hence hell is the place of our own choosing.

Great object lesson though, I may try and use it in the future.

It is a truly beautiful difference, when you observe God turning the divine back on humanity in the first, and then you watch as God relentlessly pursues humanity, no matter how many times we turn away, pursuing us all the way to the depths of the grave. I have found that any other way of describing salvation feels shallow anymore, especially PSA.

Better yet, Metr. Kalistos Ware suggests that instead of trying to talk about the atonement mechanically (that is, how it works), we should practice speaking about it narratively. I think this illustration is a great means of doing exactly that.

[Bob Hunter]

It is a truly beautiful difference, when you observe God turning the divine back on humanity in the first, and then you watch as God relentlessly pursues humanity, no matter how many times we turn away, pursuing us all the way to the depths of the grave. I have found that any other way of describing salvation feels shallow anymore, especially PSA.

Better yet, Metr. Kalistos Ware suggests that instead of trying to talk about the atonement mechanically (that is, how it works), we should practice speaking about it narratively. I think this illustration is a great means of doing exactly that.

Every seminarian should be required to demonstrate how salvation works using this illustration. It should be a final exam of sorts for systematic theology because it packs a visual truth that would really help distinguish us from the PSA'ers.

[David Graham]

Every seminarian should be required to demonstrate how salvation works using this illustration. It should be a final exam of sorts for systematic theology because it packs a visual truth that would really help distinguish us from the PSA'ers.

What a great idea..... when it's my turn to be a part of our PRC I'll try to use it as a "litmus test" for ministry candidates to see if they really understand how salvation works. Being part of a broad church we won't exclude PSA people though, but it will help us to recognise them.

[Dan Henderson]

What a great idea..... when it's my turn to be a part of our PRC I'll try to use it as a "litmus test" for ministry candidates to see if they really understand how salvation works. Being part of a broad church we won't exclude PSA people though, but it will help us to recognise them.

Then you can put little coded comments in their records that translate to "Leper, Leper, Leper"

[Benjamin Burch]

Then you can put little coded comments in their records that translate to "Leper, Leper, Leper"

Personally, I kinda like this idea.

[David Graham]

No I wasn't thinking of "Leper, Leper, Leper".... but more along the lines of connecting them with PSA congregations when vacancies became available. It would be a "win/win" outcome I would think.

[Dan Henderson]

No I wasn't thinking of "Leper, Leper, Leper".... but more along the lines of connecting them with PSA congregations when vacancies became available. It would be a "win/win" outcome I would think.

Ahh, a best fit model, how progrssive of you. It makes too much sense, it can't possibly work.