Book Review – God-ol-o-gy

51 Responses to “Book Review – God-ol-o-gy”

1. jordan fowler on April 28th, 2009 1:41 pm
   

   I would be careful if the book reflects the quote you gave. While Jesus was human (yes he even pooped) the use of doubt as part of being man is actually not an orthodox statement.

   Fear and doubt implies that Jesus didn’t KNOW who he is and what the plan was, and what was the “joy set before him” giving him reason to “endure the cross, scorning its shame”. If he knows who he himself is, then doesn’t have any doubt about anything regarding the plan or whether the Father has his back (he knows his relationship to the Father, and that no request he makes of the Father can be denied). “Fear” is one thing… he felt some fear of the experience of the cross, obviously. But “doubt”? That’s ludicrous. It implies that Christ was reliant on faith (and more than that, it implies that he had a faith that could wax and wane in its certainty), rather than on a certain knowledge… a SIGHT of what he hoped for.
2. MIke Mahoney on April 28th, 2009 4:52 pm
   

   Ah, but you’re assuming that the “doubts” mention have to relate to His death on the Cross?

   Perhaps a 9 year-old Jesus had doubts he could safely get down from the tree he had just climbed. Perhaps a thirty-three year old Jesus had doubts his disciples were ready to be on their own.

   The point is, Jesus was fully human, and experienced everything we did – except sin. How could we have victory over doubt, if He didn’t experience it in some form?
3. jordan fowler on April 29th, 2009 1:40 pm
   

   I disagree strongly.

   The notion that Jesus has to experience something to have victory over it or to properly relate to us is a flawed methodology and no conclusions can be drawn from it.
   Did He have victory over cancer without experiencing it?
   Victory over AIDS?
   Did He have victory over sin without experiencing it?

   At a deeper level.
   The notion of doubt implies that Jesus doesn’t know who He is (GOD)and what His relationship to the Father is. He knows throughout His life He is God. If he could doubt in fear that He might fall out of the tree and die, then it implies He doesn’t know what His mission is that He *will* get to , The Cross; The idea decreed purpose of God before the foundation of the earth might thwarted by a tree-falling accident is absurd asJesus always possessed a divine as well as human nature. More importantly, it implies He believed He could fail at something He intended to do (climbing down from a tree). The notion that He could intend to do something–climb a tree– and fail, would mean nature has mastered the Creator. God cannot intend to do something and fail. No occurrence can surprise HIm or take Him unexpectedly. He couldn’t be “made” to suffer; He had to chose to suffer as God.
4. MIke Mahoney on April 30th, 2009 9:09 am
   

   Of course Christ didn’t have to have cancer to deafeat cancer. But, He did have flesh, and so had victory over the flesh.

   One of the theological problems many people have (and that the reviewed book deals with) is that they seem to want to protect Jesus from being human. And of course, they miss the entire point of the incarnation.

   Why does Jesus have to die when He falls out of the tree? Couldn’t He just sprain His ankle? Or is that covered somewhere in Isaiah that I missed? The point is that Jesus became fully human. Say it with me – fully human. If He knew no fear, no uncertainty, no doubt, then He missed an important part of the human condition. Failing to climb safely from the tree does not imply nature masters the Creator; at that time He was not functioning as the Creator.

   Jesus was not omnicient when He was here in the flesh. Repeat: Not. He was quite clear that He did not know certain things; for example when He would return. Certainly as God, He would know all things, but he surrendered that part of Himself and relied solely on listening to the Father. Every miracle He did, He did on the authority of the Father. In fact, the scripture tells us He could not perform miracles in him hometown.

   There is nothing wrong with doubt. Doubt is simply a condition of requireing more information. Doubt can be overcome by faith, and Jesus had an abundance of that.

   Yes, Jesus had a Divine and human nature. But he gave up that Divine nature to become fully human. He did not walk the Earth as God, but as man. And yes, he did “experience” sin. He experienced every sin that you and I and everyone else ever committed. He did not choose to suffer as God – he chose to suffer as man.

   Jordan, your arguments and passion are compelling, but there is a basic tenent missing. If Jesus did not suffer the frustrations and weaknesses we suffer, then His coming is meaningless. Because if He – as a man – could accomplish anything he wanted, then He would not need to rely on the Father. And neither would we.
5. jordan fowler on April 30th, 2009 11:06 am
   

   Mike, I promise you that you won’t meet many people more concerned with preserving both the full humanity and full deity of Christ in the incarnation (even to the point of doing a message series on each of the classical heresies trying to reduce one of those).

   “Jesus gave up his divine nature to become fully human” is a heretical statement (and I say that in full love hoping you will rethink it). He was fully God, fully man. Stating that he is “fully human” does not imply that he is ONLY human. Stating that he is “fully human” means that he has every part of humanity that we have. Where you get the notion that doubt sine qua non of being human is anyone’s guess. Pop theology can take many irrational forms, since everyone is his or her own teacher.

   Second, where do you get the idea that his dependence on the Father has anything to do with his incarnation? The way Scripture speaks, it has always been that way, and always will. And (jumping ahead to your last paragraph) such reliance does not demand some sort of weakness… that reliance is an eternal part of the inter-Trinitarian communion.

   Third, we’ll leave aside the issue of omniscience (and, fwiw, your “for example” phrase is the ONLY such example to be found… and Peter confesses to Christ that he “knows all things” for more see Grudem’s systematic theology pg 548 in which the case is made for omiscience). Whether or not he was fully omniscient isn’t a prerequisite for demonstrating why DOUBT is not part of his spiritual and mental life. The notion that he thought he could fail at something which he intended to do implies either (1) that he believed he may not be God, or (2) that he believed God can fail to accomplish something which he intends to do. So the statement that Christ was plagued by doubt, far from being merely a denial of his omnisicience, is synonymous with saying that Christ was in error.

   The statement that he “experienced sin” is vague enough so as to keep you out of trouble. But just as it was not necessary for him to PARTICIPATE in sin in order to “experience” it, it was not necessary for him to participate in “doubt” for him to “experience” it (whatever you mean by that phrase). If you (rightly) deny that Christ participated in sin, then your method is far from consistent when it comes to this poetic but wrong notion of Christ having doubt.
6. MIke Mahoney on April 30th, 2009 12:05 pm
   

   ““Jesus gave up his divine nature to become fully human” is a heretical statement ”

   Wow. I’ve never heard Paul referred to as a heretic. The kenosis of Christ is a cornerstone to his theology. While Christ never ceased to be divine, He clearly did not operate in His divinity while on Earth.

   In other words, how could Christ be human without being weak? For if He was not weak, then He was not human. What he did show us was the perfect example of reliance on the Father. If Christ was not weak, He could not be tempted. Yet the bible tells us He was – He just didn’t give into the temptation. If there was no possibility of Him sinning, then the fact He never did is meaningless. He even asked why people called Him good, saying there was none good but God.

   Even if his only “experience” with doubt (and I suspect we’re arguing semantics here) was the same as sin, remember he literally became sin for our sake. God, in His perfection, cannot be sin, so therefore Jesus must have put His divinity aside for our sake. This does not mean that at any point he was not divine; it means he willingly did not operate in His divinity for a time.
7. jordan fowler on April 30th, 2009 12:45 pm
   

   You are using double speak here “at any point he was not divine” yet you say “he put it aside.”

   Paul NEVER taught kenotic theology as an emptying of nature but rather a humbling (Phil 2). No recognized teacher of the early church for its first 1800 years of existence ever taught that empty=gave up divine attributes. That shift began with the Germans in 1860 and was promptly discredited by orthodox theologians.

   Second, no where does the Philippian text make mention of giving up of divine nature or even power as we see Jesus exercise omniscience several times in the NT (Nathaniel under tree), omnipotence (calming of storm/over nature), and even omnipresence (if defined as the ability to enact my will anywhere without need of proximity with the Centurion’s daughter).

   Third, that Paul means humbling here and not doing away with nature is evidenced by his purpose of the text. He was not encouraging Philippians to discard their human nature but rather to live and function in humility. He thus redacted the Christ hymn for this purpose (I have a 40 page master’s thesis that i can post on this at worshiptrench).

   Your statement would be deemed heretical according to the Council of Chalcedon (451 A.D). (Please note in love I am not deeming you a heretic please. But your statement is).

   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 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; 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; 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, 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.

   Very clearly Jesus possessed both natures on earth,
   recognized in two natures, w/o confusion….not as parted or separated into two persons.
8. MIke Mahoney on April 30th, 2009 1:34 pm
   

   “Second, no where does the Philippian text make mention of giving up of divine nature or even power as we see Jesus exercise omniscience several times in the NT (Nathaniel under tree), omnipotence (calming of storm/over nature), and even omnipresence (if defined as the ability to enact my will anywhere without need of proximity with the Centurion’s daughter).”

   You’re proceeding from a false assumption here – that Jesus did these in and of himself. I personally have had experiences where I have known things about people, have laid my hands on a person to have them healed, etc. By your definition, I am divine. Talk about heresy! No divinity here!

   No, I did what Jesus did in these cases, what is clearly stated in the Gospel text – relied on God for these things. The operative instrument in the case of the centurion’s daughter was the centurion’s faith. Or else, surely Peter and Paul and everyone else who healed was divine as well.

   I’m not sure about the Chalcedon reference (I think Ephesus would fit better to your criticism of my argument) but I am not implying anything other than the full hypstatic union Chalcedonian theology holds. I am simply saying Christ chose not to operate in His divinity while on Earth, not that He ever lost it. I apologize if my words indicated anything else.

   At the end of the day, I would encourage you to rely less on the commentaries of men and more on your own personal revelations of the Word. The point of the statement George made was not to set a stone theology, but to encourage readers to not close their minds to possibilities.

   Ephesus and Chalcedon both resulted in huge schisms. Dividing the church is not beneficial. If your revelation is that Christ never felt the emptiness of doubt, so be it. You may be right. In the fullness of God’s time, you and I will sit together at the table and laugh over our mortal ignorance.
9. jordan fowler on April 30th, 2009 1:59 pm
   

   “I am simply saying Christ chose not to operate in His divinity while on Earth, not that He ever lost it.” I apologize if my words indicated anything else.

   That would move you back into the orthodox camp though we would differ Your wording and call to kenotic theology hinted strongly that you believed Christ left HIs divine nature in heaven. True, dividing the Church is NOT beneficial; however, to allow someone to continue in a false church/hope without telling them so is one of the most unloving things you can do. That is what the creeds were setting forth.

   As to my use of creeds vs. personal revelations…that is a unnecessary dichotomy. I do have personal illumination from the Word of God (calls to obedience, intimacy, etc) but always guided by the bounds of God’s activity in His bride the church throughout history. Thus my “personal revelations” as you call them should not and will never counter the orthodox creeds. Yes, we can disagree on doubt. Would that you believed Christ wasn’t fully God in the incarnation (which I see you do affirm), you wouldn’t be sitting at the table with me. Alas, now you will.
10. mark on April 30th, 2009 2:20 pm
    

    1) If you think he “literally became sin” then you’re once again a heretic. Obviously Paul doesn’t mean that the God Man turned into sin.

    2) You clearly misunderstand Paul in Phil 2:5-11, as virtually every single of his interpreters throughout Christian history–2000 years of faithful Christians militating against you– have already attested. NO ONE, I repeat, NO ONE but that small minority of interpreters whose words have been condemned by every single tradition (Catholic and each Protestant variety), takes Paul to mean that he “EMPTIES himself of divinity”. Rather, the context itself TELLS YOU what the “emptying” (Kenosis) is! It is a reference to his humility! The “emptying” is a TAKING ON of a nature which is humiliating. He forgoes his right to be treated like the King of Kings in favor of a far more humble state, that of the servant of all humanity. Nowhere at all in the context of Phil 2:5-11 can it be derived that he gave up anything of his nature.

    3) You have yet to respond to (among other things)
    (A) Jordan’s airtight argument that doubt would imply that Christ was in error…that argument is sufficient in and of itself to sweep away that silly notion that Christ “experienced doubt”, so consider that case closed, even though your pride may force you to maintain your stance
    (B) the fact that nowhere at all is there even a hint that the methodology used by the members of the Trinity in acting ad extra, toward the outside world, changes as a result of the incarnation. There is, in fact, evidence that the “dependence” of the Son on the Father is an eternal state of affairs.

    Regardless, all of this is silly, because it has been demonstrated conclusively that it is NOT possible that Christ suffered DOUBT.
11. mark on April 30th, 2009 3:10 pm
    

    TURNED INTO SIN????!!!!
12. mark on April 30th, 2009 4:00 pm
    

    Did he “become a sheep”, too? Cause Paul and J the B both say that. Perhaps it was a dual incarnation.
13. Matt Lehmann on April 30th, 2009 4:02 pm
    

    Kudos to the two of you who have been debating this topic over the past three days.

    In my short time as a Christian, I have spent more time hearing Christians argue and throw mud at each other for their beliefs instead of coming to the table, recognizing that we are on the same team, and having hard discussions as brothers and sisters in Christ.

    I felt that this is a very Christ-honoring discussion. Of course, my comment has absolutely NOTHING to do with this book in any way at all.

    That’s my two cents.
14. Fred McKinnon on April 30th, 2009 4:03 pm
    

    Hey Gang,
    I just found the debate here, I’ve invited Christian George (the Author) to stop by as well.

    I don’t have the time to dig into the debate now … but I do have a question for discussion:

    Was doubt expressed on the cross when Jesus cried out “why have You forsaken me”?

    OK – only other thing, please chill with the harsh use of the word “heretic” to my brother Mike, who wrote this article. He loves Jesus just like you and me. Here’s a couple of synonyms for a heretic: backslider, apostate.

    That’s pretty harsh and judgmental … so let’s debate the point and the quote from the book, but let’s do it graciously and lovingly, one to another.

    Thanks boys.
15. Mike Mahoney on April 30th, 2009 4:07 pm
    

    There is a great discussion going on over at TWC. Check it out an weigh in. http://tinyurl.com/c372no
16. Kyle on April 30th, 2009 4:09 pm
    

    Great conversation, but we should stop throwing around the word “heretic” for every disagreement. That word is getting so watered down. As far as “literally” becoming sin, well let’s take a short walk down penal substitutionary atonement: 2 Corinthians 5:21 says it pretty straight up: “For our sake he made him(Jesus) to *be* sin who knew no sin, so that in him we might become the righteousness of God.”

    That scripture isn’t talking symbolically.
17. MIke Mahoney on April 30th, 2009 4:11 pm
    

    Mark, I would suggets that not only do you read what I said before hitting the caplock, but that you grab a good dictionary and look up all the possible meanings of doubt.

    I never said Christ stopped being divine, or gave up His divine nature. What I said was that He chose to not operate as divine, instead choosing to operate as completely human. Clearly this was as willing choice on His part, to bend to the will of the Father, and the essence of Chalcedonian theology. (BTW, those who believe otherwise, while wrong, were not the fringe group you make them out to be. It’s quite a popular position, responseble for several schisms and papal encyclicals.)

    One definition of doubt is to “question one’s circumstances.” Christ clearly did this in the garden, though of course, humbling Himself before the Father’s will. But, you are missing the forest for the trees here. Christ spent His entire earthy life as a man! Part of being a man means to ask questions, to be curious, to seek answers. Jesus clearly did not operate in His omniscience. The Father gave Him insight into Nicodemus under the fig tree (to cite Jordan’s example) and He was obedient to it. He called upon the Father to perform miracles, choosing to forsake His own divine authority.

    Put it this way. If Jesus (the man) was incapable of sin, then who cares that He didn’t ? It’s a forgone conclusion. But, if He could, and didn’t – now that’s powerful. It means that he chose to unite His will to that of the Father.

    “TURNED INTO SIN????!!!!”

    A little thing I like to call 2Cor 5:21. It is in this context that statement comes. Jordan correctly points out that He did no participate in sin, yet took all of ours upon Himself and had victory over it.
18. jordan fowler on April 30th, 2009 6:31 pm
    

    Kyle and Fred,

    know for sure I only use the term heresy in the classical sense (Eutychianism, Nestorianism, etc) and never for a disagreement “scoreboard” over peripheral issues. What we are discussing/debating here is the core issue of who is Christ and what is his nature. At first, I was led to believe that the reviewer was reviewing the book espousing from the position that Jesus Christ left his divine nature behind (or else packed up only a few divine attributes in his Heavenly backpack for the trip down). This in the classical sense would be heretical statement countering almost every creed established (and the clear representation of the Biblical text I should add) GOOD NEWS: I think we have gotten some clarity that the reviewer does not hold to that position, though he and I would still sharply disagree over how Christ functioned in His incarnation.

    I am ecstatic if the author of the book joins the conversation and explains his views as their is nothing better than “straight from the horses mouth” meaning nothing derogatory in such statement to Christian. Oftentimes a sympathetic review tends to place views upon an author that would shock them if they thought others perceived them having those views.
19. jordan fowler on April 30th, 2009 6:31 pm
    

    *there not their (among numerous other mistypes…i don’t proof my comments ever).
20. fmckinnon on April 30th, 2009 7:45 pm
    

    WHOA – Checkout this debate on TheWorshipCommunity.Com on the Christian George Godology Book review – wow. http://bit.ly/X8HVl
21. theworshipcommunity on April 30th, 2009 7:47 pm
    

    RT @fmckinnon WHOA – Checkout this debate on TheWorshipCommunity.Com on the Christian George Godology Book review – wow. http://bit.ly/X8HVl
22. mark on April 30th, 2009 8:03 pm
    

    “Heretic” is sometimes apropriate, and fwiw, some things are worth arguing about.

    1) Fred, the quote “why have you forsaken me” is clearly a reference (as was the custom of Jewish teachers) to the entire psalm, a psalm which states that God has indeed not forsaken the speaker. The Jewish reader of Jesus’ words would have known that (saying it in Aramaic could throw them off). Besides, it’s no coincidence that he cried out that exact phrase which opens the psalm, rather than some original statement expressing “doubt”.

    2) Kyle, the concept of penal substitution has nothing whatsoever to do with any such change within the one performing the substitution. The SUB is a reference to taking OUR place, and implies no “becoming sinful or sin” on behalf of the God Man. Keep in mind that the substitution demanded a lamb without spot or blemish, because only innocent blood is accepted as payment. Besides, they say “pretty straight up” that he is a lamb, and yet you don’t think that’s so literal.

    3) Mike, you do not understand Chalcedonian theology, nor the debates leading up to the council (nor, apparently, the events which followed). Further, yet again you have failed to respond to the sound doctrine that the incarnation does NOT in fact represent a change in inter-Trinitarian operation, nor have you been able to marshal a single argument in favor of your notion that I’m wrong about that. Third, yet again you have declined to respond to Jordan’s original argument against “doubt”. This argument firmly applies to your newer, more vague definition of “doubt” and, as such, the new version falls. Finally, it’s worth noting that Christ is still human. His incarnation isn’t over.
23. Kyle on April 30th, 2009 8:17 pm
    

    Mark,

    Your condescending, borderline arrogant tone is really quite unfortunate and unfitting to the company you speak. I disagree with you and have regular conversations on this topic with fellow believers from different theological backgrounds, but it doesn’t appear you want to discuss this gracefully and with love. Therefore it’s fruitless and tiring.

    Peace to you.
    -Kyle
24. mark on April 30th, 2009 8:42 pm
    

    I do think that sometimes printed words can be mistaken as to their tone, but I make no such apology for calling Mike out in prior posts. FWIW, I’m not sure how my post addressing you could be mistaken for that.

    Mike, I don’t want to keep this up for days, but I will say in closing (at least, until the author of the book arrives, should he), that your theology simply cannot be considered “Chalcedonian”. If we isolate the most seminal debate which led to the council, that between Nestorius and those opposing him (most notably Cyril), you will find that on both sides, they would readily distance themselves from your position on Christ “living as a man”. Both sides… certainly Cyril. With that, I close.
25. jordan on April 30th, 2009 9:50 pm
    

    Yes I understand the heated tone of this conversation, this isn’t some side table debate but core to the nature of who Christ is. Get this one wrong and you’ll have hell to pay (and perhaps not just for those you teach but those following your teaching)…perhaps literally.
26. MIke Mahoney on May 1st, 2009 8:25 am
    

    Formal theology is a good thing, taken in moderation and seasoned with practical wisdom. Mark, the tone of your posts seems to indicate you are looking to pick a fight with anyone to show how smart you are. You don’t need to prove it to me, brother.

    You are certainly entitled to believe what you believe. There are many Christological theories and arguments, and while they are interesting as an intellectual excersise, they distract from the biblical ideals of loving one another and personal discipleship.

    Paul did not open a seminary. He took people under his wing and discipled them. That should tell us something about the relative importance of theological training to relationships. Don’t wield you knowledge like a club.

    That said, I think you’ll find I did answer the questions posed, though you apparently don’t like my answers . (or Fred’s, or Kyles, scriptural though they are) But you actually don’t get to tell me what I do or don’t understand, and you don’t get to claim that your view is the only one. I clearly stated in my response to Jordan that I might be right and I might be wrong. You apparently are not willing to do the same. Just because a professor tells you something does not make it true.

    The fact that we can even have debates over these matters indicates that we have not solved any issues at all in two thousand years of trying. And we won’t in another two thousand years, if we have that long. But, in truth, the only thing that matters is confessing Christ and Him crucified. But I will give you some advice: Shutting the door on people’s ideas will guarantee that no one will want to share them with you. I hope that with some time and experience, you’ll show a little less knowledge and a lot more wisdom. Peace.
27. mark on May 1st, 2009 9:21 am
    

    Perhaps you forgot how you said all condescendingly, “Say it with me: Fully Human” and other such gems from the April 30th, 9:09am post (and others). You treated Jordan like he was a child, despite his fidelity to (and knowledge of) Chalcedon. I am not the one who began the tone of which I am accused… rather, I am the one who is new to this forum and, as such, have not been extended the same “stylistic rights” as a more established member, the right to talk down to another member. You began that, not me. And lumping Jordan’s views in with the “some people don’t understand the incarnation”, “some people miss the point of….” categories is an offense for which I, as a newcomer, would never be given leniency.

    FWIW, I find that cavalierly (I think that’s a word) sweeping aside 2 millenia of Christian consensus on a matter in favor of one’s own American opinion is a greater display of hubris than anything my tone can every display. I will give you the benefit of the doubt that you DO believe you’re being consistent with Chalcedon, and so you yourself would not be guilty of such hubris. But I think you’d find “On the Unity of Christ” (Cyril) worth a read. Its primary point is not to settle the issue we’re discussing, but it is clear that Cyril (and the same goes for all such literature of the time) presupposes a very active role for Christ’s divine nature.

    My point is that not EVERYTHING in theology should be considered an open question. Not everything can be the subject of “friendly debate between godly persons” without raising some question about what is even acceptable for the “godly”. Some things must be considered closed… some lines must be (and have been) drawn around what is orthodox and what is not (that’s certainly something you’d agree on, at least in some cases). If that offends the modern American protestant (which I am), with his or her “rights” to believe whatever he or she deems true, then I get that. But I WILL (all caps again!) do better to watch my tone from now on.
28. mark on May 1st, 2009 9:22 am
    

    (And yes, I did say I was done with my prior post… but can you ever believe someone who says that?)
29. jordan on May 1st, 2009 9:26 am
    

    But the statement ““Jesus gave up his divine nature to become fully human” (which you have since clarified you didn’t really mean) HAS been settled as untrue by the Church for 2000 years; that is not a point for debate for those who would follow Christ.

    More than the question of did Jesus doubt (I say no) , that is what I want to make sure we all agree on …that Jesus possessed a Divine and Human Nature in one person. That is also John’s test in I John of orthodoxy.

    If we don’t agree on that, we really cannot be called brothers in Christ. If we do, as serious as other error is, we are.

    “he only thing that matters is confessing Christ and Him crucified.”

    Which Christ you confess matters (the fully God fully man one).
30. jordan on May 1st, 2009 9:27 am
    

    *this is what to make sure (not that) ….sorry flu is making me sloppy.
31. MIke Mahoney on May 1st, 2009 9:39 am
    

    Why should things be considered closed? Are we saying we have completely come to an understanding of scripture? (If so, let me in on Revelation!)

    Romans 14 tells us that we are free to discuss matters not essential to salvation. And my reading of Romans 10 and Ephesians 2 tells me that this is not a salvation issue, as long as we agree that Christ is Lord. The mechanics of how that came to happen is something we will not fully understand in this life.

    I do not base my theology on Chalcedon, or even two millenia of Christian thinking. Been there, done that. When I was younger (and this is not condescention’ rather testemony) I thought that knowledge of facts was the be-all, end-all. I have learned that I really know nothing, though I am well-educated. I have learned that every time I open the Word, there is a fresh revelation for me in it, and it has nothing to do with what a fourth century theologian thought. Traditional “Christian thinking” is only the beginning of the conversation, not the end of it. Solomon did not ask for knowledge; he asked for wisdom.

    Mark, I do appriciate your thoughts, really I do. I may think you are a bit close-minded in regards to this, but I still appriciate what you have to say, and it will prompt further study. But be careful when telling people they are “wrong” unless you know beyond a doubt you are right. The plank in your own eye and all of that…
32. mark on May 1st, 2009 9:54 am
    

    Shall I sweep aside belief in Christ’s unity in favor of a learned, wise agnosticism on the matter? What about belief in penal substitution? And how can I believe much of anything “beyond a doubt” when Christ can barely muster it?

    I’m just saying that some forms of agnosticism betray a hubris all their own. I will confidently stand with such an overwhelming consensus of centuries worth of Christians, because I don’t think that God was waiting for us Americans to correct them. And Eph 2 (etc) presuppose certain beliefs… I don’t think they represent an exhaustive list of what is okay to believe.

    So foundationally, what you and I have is a methodological disagreement. That’s the kind of disagreement that’s not likely to be settled.
33. mark on May 1st, 2009 10:10 am
    

    BTW, I meant to put some smiley after the “Jesus couldn’t muster…” sentence. Where do you get those?
34. MIke Mahoney on May 1st, 2009 10:56 am
    

    Just type a full colon and a close parenthesis. Like this

    Just remember not everything is black and white. And I’m not sure what being American has to do with anything. And I would not consider myself an agnostic by any stretch. I completely believe that Jesus was fully and completely God, all the time, forever. I never said that he stopped being God.
35. mark on May 1st, 2009 11:00 am
    

    I don’t mean agnostic in general, just on particular issues.

    Testing:
    ::)
36. mark on May 1st, 2009 11:00 am
    

    

    That’s weird.
37. jordan on May 1st, 2009 3:28 pm
    

    “And my reading of Romans 10 and Ephesians 2 tells me that this is not a salvation issue, as long as we agree that Christ is Lord.”

    This is precisely a salvation issue if one (not you) were to believe that the wrong Christ (one only human with no divine nature) is Lord. That would be neither Christ nor Lord and thus one would be damned.

    The doubt quote is what led me to this concern. That I see J.I. Packer wrote the preface gives me some hope this is not the author’s intent as Packer doesn’t tend to “run” with those type guys.

    Back to the question of experience as necessary for identity…
    If Christ must experience things exactly as we do in order to identify with us, He got an unfair advantage in the case of sin, because He did not have to experience temptation with a sin nature. Thus, he had a one up on us if the view is held that he must experience things like us, doubt included, to be called human.
38. Christian George on May 3rd, 2009 4:02 am
    

    Fred brought this very interesting conversation to my attention and I would like to clear up any confusion my quote might have caused.

    First of all, I’d like to say that I believe there is great importance in hammering out the nuances of Christ’s humanity/divinity. Currently, I am working on a PhD on the subject–so it’s encouraging to see fellow Christians wrestling over and (in love, I hope) talking through the issues surrounding our Savior’s life.

    I don’t have enough time or space to address every point in this lively discussion, but I would like to begin by clarifying my terms. The word “doubt” is like a wax nose–you can bend it anyway you want. But I used it in the sense of “unbelief.” In our modern idiom, when we say “I doubt that,” it can translate “I really can’t believe it.”

    So, let me say that I do believe Jesus experienced both fear and doubt during his earthly existence. I say this because we are given Scriptural examples of both. In the garden of Gethsemene we find a Jesus emotionally torn and literally bleeding with trepidation over the event that would take place the following morning–to the extent that he even asks his Father for an exit route. Here is Christ’s humanity on vivid display.

    On the cross, we find a Christ so saturated in the wrath of God that he raises a very unusual question–”Why have you forsaken me?” Yes he was quoting the Psalms, but he was also speaking out of genuine and personal doubt. “Can it be?” our Christ must have wondered, “that the Father would distance himself from the Son?” Other places throughout the Gospels we find Jesus hanging his head in disbelief concerning the actions and attitudes of his disciples. In one place he actually says, “Even after all these miracles, do you still not believe?” This is what I mean when I used the word doubt.

    Jordan, I liked what you said about Christ knowing his mission. I believe there is enough evidence in Scripture to warrant such a statement (“I must be about my father’s business,” “I will destroy the temple and build it in three days,”etc), but please do not hear me equating fleshly doubt with divine mission. Jesus never doubted that He was the Messiah, the One who would absolve us from the wrath of God. I don’t believe that to say Jesus experienced fear and doubt is to say that He was absent minded concerning his atoning accomplishements. If I thought such a statement would be interpretted this way I probably would have given the editors the okay to snip it out. I hope from a reading of the entirety of Godology, you come away with a Christ who was both fully God and man, who knew his mission and accomplished it according the Scriptures and the premeditated will of God, and did so at the cost of experiencing the nitty gritty horrors of being human–fear, doubt, frustration, anger (in his case, righteous), humiliation, etc.

    Mike, I think you identified one of my main concerns in writing the chapter on Christ’s humanity. It seems in our churches that we have created a blonde hair, blue eyes Jesus who is too lofty and bulletproof to be relevant to our daily lives. I wanted to paint Christ as Paul paints him–in the flesh. Not plastic, not penetrable. Only a Christ who knows the pain of smashing your thumb with a carpenter’s hammer, or the agonies of staying up all night, rushing from here to there on an empty stomach, experiencing humiliation, pain, and loneliness–only that kind of Christ can offer us hope. Only a Christ who really suffered can really take away our suffering.

    But I must also say that I disagree with one of your statements concerning Christ’s kenosis. You mention that Jesus gave up his divinity upon the incarnation. Well … I think we all struggle to find a language to describe the great mystery of Christ’s hypostatic union–where and when does his humanity start and his divinity end. But I do not think the Scriptures teach that Christ at any point abandoned his divinity. I think it teaches the opposite. Christ retained his divinity, and even claims it on several occassions in the Gospels. If Jesus were not divine, he could not claim the power to forgive sins. Though it is true that Jesus did give up certain “divine privileges” if I may use that phrase, when he was on earth. You are correct, we find Christ not knowing the day nor the hour of the coming of man. But then again, “he also knew their thoughts” is a common phrase and there is evidence that Christ did know more than a human could or should know. Christ also gave up omnipresence, if he ever had it prior to the incarnation (I am currently working on the Charles Spurgeon’s understanding of Christophanies–quite an interesting subject–but I do not wish to open that Christological can of worms on this occasion.

    But Christians must, I believe, confess that Jesus Christ was both fully God and fully man, or else we might be culpable of regurgitating (albeit unknowingly) some early church heresy like Marcionism or Arianism.

    I ask that you forvie such a lengthy response. The horses’ mouth has spoken (though the donkey’s mouth might be better fitting).

    Please let me know if you have any other questions concerning what I’ve written.

    Blessings,

    Christian George
39. mark on May 3rd, 2009 7:22 pm
    

    Good post, Christian. Much like you, I must pick out but a couple of points to respond to.

    First, and on a somewhat ancillary topic you raised, there’s no reason to think that Christ’s nature ever surrendered its omnipresence. Certainly one must deny it of his human nature, lest one fall into Eutychianism. Thus it is appropriate (using the communicatio idiomatum) to predicate omnipresence of the ONE PERSON of Jesus Christ, provided that one recognize that it is solely a property of his divine nature.

    As I suspect you may be hinting, the popular notion (and for that matter, Isaac Newton’s awful conception) of omnipresence could use a philosophical makeover. It’s best not to understand it in a spatial sense… that leads to some absurdities. A better understanding would be that “omnipresence” implies that God is able to act at any location without a mediator. Christ certainly had that. And even if one understands it as “location at all places”, then one must certainly say that Christ’s divine nature was still everywhere… though, like I said (and I think you’re getting at) that’s a pretty crude definition of “omnipresence”.

    As for fear, no one denied that. As for a whole host of aspects of Christ’s human experience which you and Mike have marshaled, no one has denied those.

    But unbelief? The case for that is far from clear based on those passages you mention (and I did offer some evidence, based on Jewish teaching tradition, for my interpretation of Christ’s Psalm quotation). But let’s face it: there’s precious little way to argue for one’s own interpretation of a given set of scriptures over against someone else’s interpretation. And that problem is basically an insuperable one for us protestants… we can’t appeal to some higher authority to provide definitions for the words used in scripture.

    So we’re stuck here.

    BTW, it sounds like a pretty good book! Where are you doing your PhD?
40. mark on May 3rd, 2009 10:11 pm
    

    Sorry. In that “There’s no reason to think…” sentence, obviously I meant to put “there’s no reason to think that Christ’s DIVINE nature surrendered its omnipresence.” I sure didn’t mean to sound like he has only one nature. Yikes!
41. mark on May 3rd, 2009 10:22 pm
    

    And there is more evidence for our interpretation besides Jewish teaching custom, namely, a previously-stated (but unanswered, no doubt because it’s buried somewhere in about 900 posts) argument against the notion that Christ would have any measure of “unbelief” about whether a given experience was part of God’s plan.

    But I’m fine with us burying the topic once and for all. I’m more interested in hearing about your PhD work… who it’s with, where you’re at.
42. Christian George on May 4th, 2009 4:13 am
    

    Mark,

    I’m currently doing my thesis with Steve Holmes at St. Andrews, Scotland. I’m looking at the doctrine of God in the theology of Charles Haddon Spurgeon. Spurgeon has, at least in the academic arena, been viewed primarily as a homiletician. I’m looking at him as a theologian, and holding his rhetoric up to that standard. What drew me to Spurgeon’s theology is the clear way he incarnates Puritan doctrines against the backdrop of a nineteenth-century, stagnated Victorian homiletic.

    Spurgeon uses new ways and new words to communicate ancient truths–a passion that I resonate with also. Both in Sex, Sushi, and Salvation and Godology, I have tried to write about God and the Christian experience in fresh ways–ways that urge my readers to consider the seriousness and beauty of authentic faith.

    Of course, doing a PhD on Spurgeon means that I have to read everything Spurgeon wrote. 63 volumes of sermons, dozens of books, etc, … it makes for a lot of words.

    Anytime you’re in the Scottish area, let me know. I’ll treat you to some haggis.

    Blessings,
    Christian
43. MIke Mahoney on May 4th, 2009 8:14 am
    

    Christian,

    I want to thank you for stopping by and weighing in on this discussion. This article has generated quite a bit of discussion, and it’s great to have you give your opinion on what has been said.

    I fear I’m struggling put forth my point. I never meant to state that Christ “gave up” His divinity, and certainly it was His to claim. My statement was meant to indicate that He chose not to operate in it, instead relying on the Father as a model for us to rely on Him. With the exception of the resurrection and the transfiguration, the things Jesus did (including “knowing their thoughts” ) are things that we are all capable of, giving an annointing of the Holy Spirit, faith in God and a humble spirit. I speak of this from personal experience. It requires no divinity on our part to operate in the Spiritual gifts. How could Jesus tell us to do what He did, and in fact, tell us we would do greater things, if it required divinity to do it?

    What’s important is that this was a willing action on Jesus’ part. He basically had a position of “Yes, I can do these things, but I will have faith in the Father instead of my self. This is so you can have faith in me, instead of yourself.” It’s splitting hairs, and we could be arguing semantics, but I believe there is a disctinction to be made.

    Obviously, I enjoyed the book tremendously, and will likely have to re-read it to see what I might have missed. Thanks again.
44. Mike Mahoney on May 4th, 2009 12:16 pm
    

    Can you believe the Godology discussion is still going on? Now the author has weighed in! Why don’t you? http://tinyurl.com/c372no
45. mark on May 4th, 2009 1:34 pm
    

    That sounds like an interesting approach, Christian. I haven’t read Spurgeon, myself.

    I think I have something you’d be interested in, but I can’t think of how to get it to you without publicly handing out my email address. Not sure if the admin could facilitate getting my email address to you.

    mark
46. jordan on May 4th, 2009 8:30 pm
    

    Mark and Christian

    I’ll be like Jesus and bridge the gap. Christian, step out like a penitent sinner and email me at worshiptrench(atsign)gmail(-dot-)com. Mark can play the role of God the Father who doesn’t want his addressed sullied with spam. I can then forward you the document Mark wants to show you (all the while using both my human AND divine natures…hahahahah!)
47. jordan on May 4th, 2009 8:49 pm
    

    w/ further okay the Father had Jesus as the agent…it wasn’t that He didn’t want to get sullied, though mark won’t post his email because he thinks he is sooo important the world with commence emailing him. (hahahahhaa…no worries, mark and i know one another).
48. Christian George on May 6th, 2009 9:39 am
    

    How about this. Mark, just email me. author@christiangeorge.org.

    Blessings-
    Christian
49. Fred McKinnon on May 6th, 2009 9:51 am
    

    Christian
    now THAT’s easy …

    Jordan .. I’m still waiting on your response to Christian’s response … or did I miss it?

    And please allow me to be the first to say …
    I don’t comprehend half of the big theological terms you guys (Jordan, Mark, Mike) are throwing around. Scary, and I’m the Publisher of this e-zine … so don’t take that as a horrible thing, take it as my transparency to say I welcome WELCOME WELCOME this kind of conversation …

    I desire for the content we publish to have sound doctrine, though I also realize that there are always issues where scholars differ … that being said, TWC wants to express content and ideas to help build us up as worshipers .. in all areas, and they are not written as “doctrinal fact”, (again though we want that as close as possible!), and are wide open to discussion.

    I’m glad to see that we do all agree that Jesus was both God and Man …
    FM
50. mark on May 6th, 2009 12:45 pm
    

    Sorry. I’m still new enough to reading blogs and I didn’t know if it was proper to give out one’s email to strangers… I don’t think my mom would approve!
51. jordan on May 6th, 2009 8:40 pm
    

    Fred…thanks. as to my thoughts. First an apology for horrific writing. I had a really high fever and now, fever free, am appalled at how I simply omitted important words.

    Great to know Christian is orthodox, which I suspected He was last J. I. Packer put an old man smackdown on him.

    Christian and I will still need to debate out the “doubt” piece because of the idea of God failing to do something He intended to do. But that is somewhat of a peccadillo.

    I rejoice that Christian is anti-kenotic in the classical German sense of the term.

    I think him more the horse’s mouth than his self-ascribed donkey’s mouth, but self-deprecating humor is always appreciated.

    I will have the book on my full read list though I am having to read Wild at Heart as part of an event I am committed to. Don’t even get me started on the “God as risk-taker” possiblity and open theism dodge (Ugggh..I feel another fever coming on). But I am being faithful to their process. Then a simmering in Godology and finally back to reading mostly dead guys (tons of them being puritan).

Feel free to leave a comment...
and oh, if you want a pic to show with your comment, go get a gravatar!