I've just been booted out of a weird facebook argument regarding, of all things, the deity of Christ. A couple of parties took up the position that Jesus is NOT God--that he is subservient to the Father--a subordinate, a lesser being. Oh, they argue that he's still important, but that he's simply and clearly NOT God.To back up their position, they toss around many scripture passages--passages like John 10:29 where Jesus says "My Father, who has given them to me, is greater than all." They point to verses like this and exclaim, "See, Jesus himself admits he's not God."
That's their argument--and they've got a large number of verses that, quite honestly, on the surface, seem to support their case. However, the "Jesus IS God" group has its own share of verses. They point to John 1:1 ("the Word was with God, and the Word was God") among others.
Unfortunately, as clear as these passages seem, the "Jesus IS NOT God" crowd has a different interpretation. Oh, their intepretations aren't completely straightforward and they're certainly not orthodox, but they are, at least, feasible.
And so these groups battled on and on and on, each citing more and more scriptures to back up their case.
Finally, the "Jesus IS NOT God" group resorted to this argument that, sadly, in my opinion won the debate: "The Bible has claimed, from its inception, that there is only one God. Not until the 7th Century did this view become distorted and warped in Christian teaching. Not until the 7th Century did anyone start to make the claim that Jesus is God."
Now, this claim is absolutely so ridiculous and absurd that it should have been scuttled immediately. Yet, sadly, the "Jesus IS God" crowd had no response at all. They simply tossed out more and more Bible verses but they never dealt with the bizarre, bald-faced lie. And that strategy of non-engagement allowed the claim to stand and anybody reading it with an open mind (and no background in Christian history) would have to conclude that the claim went unchallenged because it was true.
But it's not true. And it only takes a beginning understanding of Christian History to refute it. Yet the "Jesus IS God" crowd let it stand and the reason is simple: they fear anything that even smacks of Tradition and they shun Christian history.
What a sad, pathetic stance. As Christians, we should never be afraid of the Truth--whatever that Truth is. Christ our Lord is Truth. No exploration into Truth is going to be anti-christ.
In regards to this bozo claim that the 7th Century was the first time we see Christians referring to Christ as God, let's see how quickly history refutes the idiocy.
Let's look at two writings from St. Ignatius, an early Church Father that gives evidence that Christians of that period already thought of Christ as God. First, let's look at his Letter to the Ephesians where he writes:
So what we have is a hearer (possibly even a student) of the Apostle John who goes on to become the Bishop of Antioch confirming, at the very beginning of the second century--possibly even during the lifetime of the Apostle John himself--a belief in the Divinity of Christ.
This is well earlier than the claim in the silly facebook argument and so it completely refutes it. However, there's more information we can glean. For example, if St. Ignatius is representing a distortion of the teaching of the Apostles, we would have to admit that the very first generation of Christians after the Apostles had already screwed up the message. That means, before the Doctrine of the Trinity was addressed, before the Canon of Scripture was compiled, the Church had already screwed up--and not just on something little. They had attributed Divinity to a mere man. That would mean the Apostles--at least John--were terrible teachers. It would also mean we would sincerely need to question ANYTHING we believe as Christians. If they could be wrong about Christ being God that early, how do we expect them to get anything else right?
Take the Scriptures for instance. If the early Christians screwed up Christ's Divinity and mistakenly thought and taught that a mere man was God, how in the world are we to believe that these same Christians somehow miraculously figured out which books should be included in the Bible and which books were spurious? If they start with an unorthodox, heretical understanding of Christ, how do we seriously believe these same flawed men would figure out which books shouldn't be included in the Bible?
Now, the "Jesus IS NOT God" crowd places as much importance and significance on the Bible as the "Jesus IS God" crowd. They just have a different interpretation. A look at history and then some fundamental logical reasoning shows that if their view is correct, then even the Scriptures they cling to are not reliable. Their position is untenable. They're basing their case on the words of a document that, if their claim is true, has extremely limited value.
When we consult history in the case of the Jesus IS or IS NOT God argument, we can instantly dispel the ridiculous claim that Christians in the 7th Century pulled the Divinity of Christ out of the air.
However, that's not all history does for us. History in this case shows that the very earliest extra-biblical sources--the people who were taught by the Apostles--the people who spoke the language the Bible was written in--support the consistently historical Christian viewpoint that Christ Jesus is God the Son--one in substance and being with the Father.
History is not something to be feared. It fleshes out our faith and gives it depth. Every new generation of Christians doesn't need to start from scratch. There's a world of work done by great Christians, men and women who loved our Lord. We can stand on their shoulders. We don't need to reinvent the wheel.
That's their argument--and they've got a large number of verses that, quite honestly, on the surface, seem to support their case. However, the "Jesus IS God" group has its own share of verses. They point to John 1:1 ("the Word was with God, and the Word was God") among others.
Unfortunately, as clear as these passages seem, the "Jesus IS NOT God" crowd has a different interpretation. Oh, their intepretations aren't completely straightforward and they're certainly not orthodox, but they are, at least, feasible.
And so these groups battled on and on and on, each citing more and more scriptures to back up their case.
Finally, the "Jesus IS NOT God" group resorted to this argument that, sadly, in my opinion won the debate: "The Bible has claimed, from its inception, that there is only one God. Not until the 7th Century did this view become distorted and warped in Christian teaching. Not until the 7th Century did anyone start to make the claim that Jesus is God."
Now, this claim is absolutely so ridiculous and absurd that it should have been scuttled immediately. Yet, sadly, the "Jesus IS God" crowd had no response at all. They simply tossed out more and more Bible verses but they never dealt with the bizarre, bald-faced lie. And that strategy of non-engagement allowed the claim to stand and anybody reading it with an open mind (and no background in Christian history) would have to conclude that the claim went unchallenged because it was true.
But it's not true. And it only takes a beginning understanding of Christian History to refute it. Yet the "Jesus IS God" crowd let it stand and the reason is simple: they fear anything that even smacks of Tradition and they shun Christian history.
What a sad, pathetic stance. As Christians, we should never be afraid of the Truth--whatever that Truth is. Christ our Lord is Truth. No exploration into Truth is going to be anti-christ.
In regards to this bozo claim that the 7th Century was the first time we see Christians referring to Christ as God, let's see how quickly history refutes the idiocy.
Let's look at two writings from St. Ignatius, an early Church Father that gives evidence that Christians of that period already thought of Christ as God. First, let's look at his Letter to the Ephesians where he writes:
"For our God, Jesus Christ, was conceived by Mary in accord with God’s plan: of the seed of David, it is true, but also of the Holy Spirit" (Letter to the Ephesians, 18:2).In another letter, his Letter to the Romans, St. Ignatius writes:
"[T]o the Church beloved and enlightened after the love of Jesus Christ, our God, by the will of him that has willed everything which is" (Letter to the Romans).These letters were written around AD 110, so that makes them very early witnesses to the beliefs of the early church, but what's even more interesting is that St. Ignatius was actually a hearer of the Apostle John.
So what we have is a hearer (possibly even a student) of the Apostle John who goes on to become the Bishop of Antioch confirming, at the very beginning of the second century--possibly even during the lifetime of the Apostle John himself--a belief in the Divinity of Christ.
This is well earlier than the claim in the silly facebook argument and so it completely refutes it. However, there's more information we can glean. For example, if St. Ignatius is representing a distortion of the teaching of the Apostles, we would have to admit that the very first generation of Christians after the Apostles had already screwed up the message. That means, before the Doctrine of the Trinity was addressed, before the Canon of Scripture was compiled, the Church had already screwed up--and not just on something little. They had attributed Divinity to a mere man. That would mean the Apostles--at least John--were terrible teachers. It would also mean we would sincerely need to question ANYTHING we believe as Christians. If they could be wrong about Christ being God that early, how do we expect them to get anything else right?
Take the Scriptures for instance. If the early Christians screwed up Christ's Divinity and mistakenly thought and taught that a mere man was God, how in the world are we to believe that these same Christians somehow miraculously figured out which books should be included in the Bible and which books were spurious? If they start with an unorthodox, heretical understanding of Christ, how do we seriously believe these same flawed men would figure out which books shouldn't be included in the Bible?
Now, the "Jesus IS NOT God" crowd places as much importance and significance on the Bible as the "Jesus IS God" crowd. They just have a different interpretation. A look at history and then some fundamental logical reasoning shows that if their view is correct, then even the Scriptures they cling to are not reliable. Their position is untenable. They're basing their case on the words of a document that, if their claim is true, has extremely limited value.
When we consult history in the case of the Jesus IS or IS NOT God argument, we can instantly dispel the ridiculous claim that Christians in the 7th Century pulled the Divinity of Christ out of the air.
However, that's not all history does for us. History in this case shows that the very earliest extra-biblical sources--the people who were taught by the Apostles--the people who spoke the language the Bible was written in--support the consistently historical Christian viewpoint that Christ Jesus is God the Son--one in substance and being with the Father.
History is not something to be feared. It fleshes out our faith and gives it depth. Every new generation of Christians doesn't need to start from scratch. There's a world of work done by great Christians, men and women who loved our Lord. We can stand on their shoulders. We don't need to reinvent the wheel.
No comments:
Post a Comment