Theodore Zachariades's Blog, page 2

January 24, 2017

“Alien Righteousness” by Dr. Martin Luther

Martin Luther on “Alien Righteousness”


 


The first is alien righteousness that is the righteousness of another, instilled from without. This is the righteousness of Christ by which he justifies through faith, as it is written in I Cor. 1 [:30]: “Whom God made our wisdom, our righteousness and sanctification and redemption.” In John 11 [:25- 26], Christ himself states: “I am the resurrection and the life; he who believes in me . . . shall never die.” Later he adds in John 14 [:6], “I am the way, and the truth, and the life.” This righteousness, then, is given to men in baptism and whenever they are truly repentant. Therefore a man can with confidence boast in Christ and say: “Mine are Christ’s living, doing, and speaking, his suffering  and dying, mine as much as if I had lived, done, spoken, suffered, and died as he did.” Just as a bridegroom possesses all that is his bride’s and she all that is his-for the two have all things in common because they are one flesh [Gen. 2:24]-so Christ and the church are one spirit [Eph. 5:29-32]. Thus the blessed God and Father of mercies has according to Peter, granted to us, very great and precious gifts in Christ [II Pet. 1:4]. Paul writes in II Cor. 1 [:3]: “Blessed be the God and Father of our Lord Jesus Christ, the Father of mercies and God of all comfort, who has blessed us in Christ with every spiritual blessing in the heavenly places.”(1) This inexpressible grace and blessing was long ago promised to Abraham in Gen. 12 [:3]: “And in thy seed (that is, in Christ) shall all the nations of the earth be blessed.”(2) Isaiah 9 [:6] says: “For to us a child is born, to us a son is given.” “To us,” it says, because he is entirely ours with all his benefits if we believe in him, as we read in Rom. 8 [:32]: “He who did not spare his own Son but gave him up for us all, will he not also give us all things with him?” Therefore everything which Christ has is ours, graciously bestowed on us unworthy men out of God’s sheer mercy, although we have rather deserved wrath and condemnation, and hell also. Even Christ himself, therefore, who says he came to do the most sacred will of his Father [John 6:38], became obedient to him; and whatever he did, he did it for us and desired it to be ours, saying, “I am among you as one who serves” [Luke 22:27]. He also states, “This is my body, which is given for you” [Luke 22: 19]. Isaiah 43 [:24] says, “You have burdened me with your sins, you have wearied me with your iniquities.”


 


Through faith in Christ, therefore, Christ’s righteousness be­ comes our righteousness and all that he has becomes ours; rather, he himself becomes ours. Therefore the Apostle calls it “the righteousness of God” in Rom. 1 [:17]: For in the gospel “the righteousness of God is revealed . . . , as it is written, ‘The righteous shall live by his faith.'” Finally, in the same epistle, chapter 3 [:28], such a faith is called “the righteousness of God”:  “We hold that a man is justified by faith.” This is an infinite righteousness, and one that swallows up all sins in a moment, for it is impossible that sin should exist in Christ. On the contrary, he who trusts in Christ exists in Christ; he is one with Christ, having the same righteousness as he. It is therefore impossible that sin should remain in him. This righteousness is primary; it is the basis, the cause, the source of all our own actual righteousness. For this is the righteousness given in place of the original righteousness lost in Adam. It accomplishes the same as that original righteousness would have accomplished; rather, it accomplishes more.


 


It is in this sense that we are to understand the prayer in Psalm 30 [Ps. 31:1]: “In thee, 0 Lord, do I seek refuge; let me never be put to shame; in thy righteousness deliver me!” It does not say “in my” but “in thy righteousness,” that is, in the righteousness of Christ my God which becomes ours through faith and by the grace and mercy of God. In many passages of the Psalter, faith is called “the work of the Lord,” “confession,” “power of God,” “mercy,” “truth,” “righteousness.” All these are names for faith in Christ, rather, for the righteousness which is in Christ. The Apostle therefore dares to say in Gal. 2 [:20], “It is no longer I who live, but Christ who lives in me.”He further states in Eph. 3 [:14-17]: “I bow my knees before the Father. . . that . . . he may grant. . .  that Christ may dwell in your hearts through faith.”


Therefore this alien righteousness, instilled in us without our works by grace alone-while the Father, to be sure, inwardly draws us to Christ – is set opposite original sin, likewise alien, which we acquire without our works by birth alone. Christ daily drives out the old Adam more and more in accordance with the extent to which faith and knowledge of Christ grow. For alien righteousness is not instilled all at once, but it begins, makes progress, and is finally perfected at the end through death.


 



The section “who has blessed, etc.” is not from II Corinthians, as indicated by Luther, but from Eph. 1:3.

 



12:3 has “in thee” instead of “in thy seed.” The quotation above is actually from Gen. 22: 18.


The post “Alien Righteousness” by Dr. Martin Luther appeared first on Omnipresent-Jesus.

 •  0 comments  •  flag
Share on Twitter
Published on January 24, 2017 12:30

January 18, 2017

At-One-Ment: The Cross Saves


The Cross Saves.


The cross provides an atonement. Indeed, the cross saves. But how?


The fact that Jesus died on the cross in AD 30 or 33 is pretty much established by historical investigation. I will continue to have an interest in the historical aspects of Jesus’s life. The significance of that death and its true meaning is not captured, however, by mere historical reconstruction. That is why we need a theological explanation and not just a chronological appreciation.


The gospels present the death of Christ is  in  stark fashion as a punishment by the Roman authorities at the instigation of Jewish religious leaders. This much is certain. Pontius Pilate has gone down in history as the culprit who sentenced Jesus to the dreaded criminal execution of crucifixion. Indeed, the creeds tell us, Jesus died a physical death on the cross. Because the Passover was approaching and the Roman authorities wanted the three criminals dead much quicker than a normal crucifix death they ordered soldiers to break the legs of the men up on the crosses. This would prevent the condemned from pushing up and so enable them to exhale and so continue to live a little longer. The two thieves, as we know, were to suffer that fate. When the soldier approached Jesus he did not break his legs. Jesus had already died. To be sure the armed man pierced Christ’s side and subsequently blood and water drained from the wound.


All this is pretty clear and pretty certain. What of it? That is the question. Jesus was no ordinary man and his death was no ordinary death. The meaning of Jesus’s demise is hinted at in various passages in the gospel records, but it is not fully explained till we read the accounts of the Apostles that provided the epistles. In the New Testament epistles, which mostly predated the gospel narratives, we find an explanation of the meaning of Jesus’s death. For example, in Mark 10:45 we are told that Jesus came not to be served but to serve and give his life as a ransom for many. In John 10 in the discourse about the shepherd, Jesus tells his disciples that he will lay down his life for the sheep. Indeed, Jesus insists that no one will take his life from him but he will lay it down and re-take it (in a resurrection it is presumed).


Now we begin to see that what Christ accomplishes on the cross is primarily for others. First and foremost Jesus dies in obedience to the eternal plan of the Triune God. In Philippians 2, Paul speaks of Christ’s obedience even unto the death of a cross. In the Old Testament, prophets spoke of the pleasure of God in bruising his son. Whatever else the death of Christ is, it is an act of obedience to God (the Father). Because the death of Christ is seen as the fulfillment of the Levitical sacrificial system, and the Levitical sacrifices had to do with forgiveness of sins, it is in connection with the sins of God’s people with which Jesus’s death must be seen. The clearest example is the Yom Kippur or day of atonement ritual that is recorded in Leviticus 16. The High Priest would enter the inner sanctum and make atonement for his own sins and for the sins of God’s people. Symbolically, an animal was killed and the blood is an atonement, the sins are covered. Also, a scapegoat is released into the wilderness outside the camp and the sins of the people are symbolically placed upon the animal that removes them.


Themes begin to emerge from a close reading of the New Testament. Jesus is the God-Man Messiah. He is not merely a representative of his people but, as becomes ever so clear, he is their substitute. No doubt, there are exemplary connotations from Jesus life and death, hence the discipleship language of taking one’s own cross daily and following after Christ. But the predominant theme or idea that is associated with Christ’s death is that he dies in the stead or place of sinners. And here is where the justice and mercy of God kiss, so to speak. Christ dies but it is not mere physical death that he endures. Jesus bears the wrath of God in his own person as a substitutionary atonement (Romans 3:21ff; 5:12ff). He is punished with the wrath of God. He absorbs the wrath of God that is the just penalty for God’s people. He is hence the lamb of God that takes away the sins of the sheep, the Jewish sheep and the others, the Gentiles, hence the whole world (John 1:29; 1 John 2:2). God is satisfied and sinners go free.


This atonement is multifaceted. It is a penal substitution, but it is also a ransom payment. Christ pays a price for the wayward sheep just like Hosea pays a price for his wayward wife, Gomer. Isaiah 52:13-53:12 is perhaps the clearest passage of this vicarious atonement, ransom, and satisfaction.


The ransom payment concept was particularly influential in Christian history especially during the Early Patristic period and the Middle Ages. This was so because a faulty theory concerning the death of Christ had become almost axiomatic. This was the moral influence theory that has been famously associated with Peter Lombard (1095-1160) the theologian. In essence, this view is one where Jesus death is not a payment, but and illustration of God’s love for people, and the love Christ has for his bride is to be reciprocated, hence the moral influence of Jesus’s death is that we respond to his love with our own. The problem still haunts believers that embrace this approach: “what of the punishment for sins?” If Christ does not pay for our sins, then what of our sins? They are forgiven by fiat as the lover of Christ promises to live a life of righteousness in response to Christ’s love exemplified on Calvary. This view plays fast and loose with the very justice of God. The law is not upheld, the Levitical foreshadowings are a mockery, and very misleading, and the universe is seen as a big giant rug under which sins must be swept underneath so as not to threaten God’s people.


Similar to this notion is the Moral government theory of the death of Christ invented by a theologian during the Reformation era. Hugo Grotius (1583-1645) is often seen as its best exponent. Though in reality this ought to be the view of Arminians, if they are consistent, they have not universally embraced this view, Still many do. This governmental idea is a little tricky to grasp. Basically, it affirms that God is Ruler in the transaction of the cross and not Judge. Hence, Christ’s death upholds the rule of God and therefore God’s wrath threatens people and serves to urge people to moral lives. In this sense though the death of Christ aids redemption it does not in itself actually redeem. So we still need an overarching paradigm of why the cross.


The true gospel of grace is under-girded by the substitutionary and penal satisfaction of the atoning work of Jesus. God’s justice is upheld. His punishment is meted out on the substitute and the sinners for whom Christ dies are free from punishment. The ilasmos or propitiatory sacrifice affirms that a personal agent [the Father] is appeased by another personal agent [the Son]. We need more than expiation or the removal of sins. We need a propitiation, an appeasement of and satisfaction of God’s wrath. The reason that this understanding of the death of Christ is paramount is that without it there can not really be a gospel of good news that sinners will be saved by God through grace alone. Or to put it differently, the death of Christ in behalf and in the stead of his people is proclaimed in the message of the gospel that declares that God saves sinners monergistically and soveriegnly to His glory alone. The atonement atones, and the ransom redeems, and the propitiation propitiates. This is not provisional but effectual. This is not for everyone without exception but is for the sheep without exception. Praise God for His unspeakable gift. The cross saves!


 


 


The post At-One-Ment: The Cross Saves appeared first on Omnipresent-Jesus.

 •  0 comments  •  flag
Share on Twitter
Published on January 18, 2017 17:19

January 5, 2017

Heaven or Christ: What Do You Really Desire?


Heaven or Christ? That is the question.


“. . . heaven is not heaven without Christ.” This quote from a sermon by Puritan Minister, Richard Sibbes expresses a real question that needs to be thought through and answered. What do you really desire most? Of course, Sibbes is reflecting on Paul’s dilemma in Philippians 1, where the Apostle expresses his deepest longing in this pithy comment: “I desire to depart, and to be with Christ.”


What are the choices for Paul? Wel,l in reality, he knew he had no true choice but to remain and do God’s bidding till the Lord called him to his eternal rest with Christ beyond the grave. Paul was not seriously contemplating suicide. No. It is a rhetorical reflection designed to show Paul’s extreme love for Christ. Paul wishes – longs for deeply – to be with Christ. This is the “better” which Paul aspires to in his thought experiment.  Sibbes mentions that to love heaven more than Christ is wrong. Heaven, indeed would not be heaven without Christ. It is better to be wherever Christ is than to be in heaven without Him.


What is it that you really desire: is it the gift or the giver?


Christ is before all. Christ is better than all. Christ is best of all!



The post Heaven or Christ: What Do You Really Desire? appeared first on Omnipresent-Jesus.

 •  0 comments  •  flag
Share on Twitter
Published on January 05, 2017 18:21

December 24, 2016

Christology and Science: A Review

 


This review of Christology and Science by Shults first appeared in the Journal of the Evangelical Theological Society 54/4 (December 2011) pp. 877-79. This is an example of the type of “Clever Christology” I was speaking of in my last post.


Christology and  Science.  By  F.  LeRon  Shults.  Grand  Rapids:  Eerdmans,  2008,  x  +  171  pp.,  $30.00 paper.


LeRon Shults attempts a mammoth project of interdisciplinary engagement. His goal, as in an earlier work, Reforming the Doctrine of God (Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 2005), is to refashion traditional Christian theology by bringing contemporary science to speak to doctrinal questions. Shults takes Christological themes and make them dialogue partners with contemporary science. Specifically, he addresses incarnation, atonement, and parousia, and interacts with various conversation partners, namely, evolutionary biology, cultural anthropology, and physical cosmology. The influence, as the writer hopes, will be in both directions so that theology will speak to science just as much as science will speak to theology.


Shults anticipates objections from both quarters so he goes to lengths in allaying fears about the role each discipline will have in the interactive process. He does this by drawing an analogy from marriage and insists that the disciplines respect each other as lovers. In love one takes risks, and so will adherents of both disciplines; hence, there appear to be common desires from both realms. Shults portrays this in a table (p.   14):


 





Incarnation & Biology
Atonement & Anthropology
Parousia & Cosmology


Shared Interest: Knowing
Shared Interest: Acting
Shared Interest: Being


Epistemology & Noetic Desire
Ethics & Moral  desire
Metaphysics & Aesthetic  Desire


Identity of  Jesus Christ
Agency of  Jesus Christ
Presence of  Jesus Christ



 


Shults acknowledges some limitations because of the specific choices he has made but asks for patience while claiming that these concepts (identity, agency, and presence) commend themselves to the task of  integration.


He proceeds in each subsequent chapter to deal with each of these particular ideas. His method is simple, in a sense. Turns in late modern philosophy, Shults argues, have created new conceptual space where the disciplines of theology and science do their work or operate. It is in the “shared space” that the commonalities of desire evince themselves in the specified realm of investigation and find potential enrichment and modification from the other discipline.


First, knowing is addressed as the epistemological starting point for both disciplines: both disciplines want to know. Three matters come under discussion: (1) sameness and difference; (2) body and soul; and (3) origin and goal. Shults claims, “Exploring these philosophical factors is a first step towards articulating the intuitions of the biblical tradition in a way that allows a liberal dose of scientific insight into their formulation, precisely in order to conserve their transformative power in our contemporary context” (p. 24). Here he addresses the question of Christ’s identity. A survey of patristic theology is utilized to show how fixed static categories shaped the endeavor; thus, he questions the “achievement” of Chalcedon. “Sameness” was the watchword during these early debates and formulations, but in late modern philosophy, claims Shults, “difference” has made a comeback. Specifically, Darwin’s evolutionary theory challenged the idea of human nature’s substantive sameness (p. 29).


Next, Shults moves to the question of body and soul. Again, he questions the an- cient approaches that he believes have wreaked havoc on the theological attempts to understand the identity of Jesus Christ. Contemporary notions of holistic anthropology where mind is reduced to brain activity avoid perceived problems inherent the ancient methods, especially as this dualistic anthropology was projected back onto God. This   is to be overcome.


Finally, Shults takes up the matter of origin and goal. Both evolution and theology share interest in humanity’s emergence and destination. He explains that traditional conceptions of the incarnational theology need to be jettisoned as recent findings in paleobiology and contemporary genetics, in particular, render the biblical accounts of a literal Adam and Eve and a historical fall into sin as   impossible.


Shults evidences a wide reading background as varied examples are brought to bear on the discussion. Exemplary proposals that merit attention are used to bolster the need for theological change. So on the incarnation we read of Arthur Peacocke, molecular biologist, who has critiqued the traditional notion of the virgin birth. Also, Denis Edwards, who uses evolution and relies on Karl Rahner, is hailed as an example. He believes that the process of divine grace bestowed in an abundant way in Jesus the man is still God himself acting.


In carefully scrutinizing these suggestions for how to understand Christ, one gets the impression that in Shults’s project, science has trumped Scripture and in the end the theological proposals are only able to produce earthly constructs. Contemporary science will falter in addressing the metaphysical assumptions of NT Christology. To me, these proposals seem a far cry from Paul’s claim that God was manifested in the flesh. Moreover, the Bible has more than just intuitions that may be molded in any way pertinent to the individual interpreter. Viewing Scripture as merely providing intuitions is a serious flaw in this entire project and as such the work undermines the meaning of the NT text concerning Jesus (for a similar critique of other contemporary Christologies, see Paul Molnar, Incarnation and Resurrection: Toward a Contemporary Understanding [Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 2007] 311–29).


The question as to whether Shults has successfully integrated science and theology in this endeavor needs to be answered with a yes and a no. First, he shows viable ways of making theological statements that are amenable to the twenty-first century scientific mindset with its naturalistic and uniformitarian assumptions. He expresses hope that using tools of contemporary science as a method for Christology can interpret biblical intuitions, and that these may yield welcome insights on Jesus. In this regard, Shults’s larger theological project will, I suspect, be seen as a major endeavor and a very welcome work. His text joins the plethora of proposals filling academic journals and bookstores with Jesus studies and Christologies that have recently been produced. These resulting theologies of Christ, however, are just that: contemporary versions of academic theology that are all too certain of the assured results of critical theory and the superiority of the modern. Consequently, they end up undermining the portrait of Christ presented in the NT. They resemble the attempts of the historical Jesus scholarship of the past where all too often Jesus was largely a reflection of the investigator himself clad in semi-biblical dress.


Also, the question concerning the success of Shults’s integrative scheme must be rephrased. Is his work likely to result in a truly biblical Christology? I believe this is where the particular problem of Shults’s work suffers most. The resulting Christ that will be the inevitable result of engagement and dialog with evolutionary biology, for example, will not approximate the reality of  God the Son portrayed in the NT and in the creeds of early Christendom. For a more helpful approach to achieve the goal Shults seeks, see C. John Collins, Science & Faith: Friends or Foes (Wheaton: Crossway, 2003). The anemic Arian-like products that contemporary science can produce will not satisfy those of us who take the Chalcedon definition not as a metaphysical alteration of Jesus with the use of philosophical apparatus and sophistication, but as a serious understanding of the intent of the New Testament (see Donald Gelpi, Encountering Jesus Christ: Rethinking Christological Faith and Commitment [Milwaukee: Marquette University Press, 2009] 11–51, where, among other concerns, Gelpi reveals the Arianizing of con- temporary Christology). So, will the anticipated Christologies of Shults’s methodological integration succeed in passing biblical muster? The answer, sadly, is no, they will not.


 


 


The post Christology and Science: A Review appeared first on Omnipresent-Jesus.

 •  0 comments  •  flag
Share on Twitter
Published on December 24, 2016 10:35

December 23, 2016

Clever Christology: Faithful to Scripture?

Clever Christology.


Something true of most recent theology is particular so in Christology. One can encounter this since the closure of the Apostolic era. In one way or another teachers, preachers, and most of all scholars have sought to be innovative or clever in their theological constructions. Of course, there is nothing wrong with utilizing current concepts to help portray the Biblical teaching bout any subject, even that of Jesus Christ. However, it is in the methodological name of ‘changing the medium and not the message’ where much blatant heresy has been birthed. This cannot be denied. Even more so, when an implicit agenda that drives the entire investigation will incorrect, heterodox, and clearly unbiblical teaching emerge. This desire to be wed to philosophical fads, political ideologies or academic certainties will surely skew results. Most famous in this regard was the important study by Schweitzer. After he surveyed the various ‘christologies’ on offer he concluded that the theologians had done something akin to looking into a pond and seeing their own reflection. The Jesus portrayed had an uncanny resemblance to the theologians!


The goal can never be a hollow attempt to become absolutely neutral or to enter any theological endeavor without preconceptions or presuppositions. That is impossible. No one can escape his culture or experience. No one can become a tabula rasa as if that were attainable or even desirable. No, the aim should be to reflect or promote the very teaching of Scripture. Without a core center guiding one’s research and standing as a guard against swaying into falsehoods, we will all end up as heretics. So after many years studying the Bible and often seeing the clear and sometimes unclear deceptions on offer I claim that we must return to a Christology of Faithfulness. Faithful to What the Bible says about Jesus. We must resist the practice most often exhibited by well-meaning preachers when they select a text, read it, and then spend forty-five minutes telling stories, anecdotes, and personal experiences. So it can also happen in the academy. Scholars may give lip-service to the Bible. Their claims to biblical fidelity can be undermined using the cutting edge tools of serious scholarly approaches. The so called “assured results” have often led many an honest scholar into murky waters. What will an ignorant layman do in this instant? What can one do when one’s favorite or likable scholar or resource go-to person exposits a teaching and it is accepted, despite its error, because of the authority that comes with the office? The Psalmist reminds us that in some occasions God can make us wiser than our teachers. We must take up the responsibility of knowing Scripture so well that we can detect heterodoxy early in a sermon, pamphlet, lecture, or book. Let us become as the Bereans. Let’s put an end to clever Christology.



 


The post Clever Christology: Faithful to Scripture? appeared first on Omnipresent-Jesus.

 •  0 comments  •  flag
Share on Twitter
Published on December 23, 2016 16:26

December 22, 2016

Birthplace of a King

The Birthplace of a King


This short piece has often brought me to sanity among the hustle and bustle of the season. I trust it will be a blessing to you as it has been to me. Behold a King is born!


When the Lord of Glory came to this earth,he was born in a cave where men sheltered the beasts. The cave in the Church of the Nativity in Bethlehem may be that same cave, or it may not be. That we will never know for certain. But there is something beautiful in the symbolism that the church where the cave is has a door so low that all must stoop to enter. It is supremely fitting that every man should approach the infant Jesus upon his knees.


William Barclay.



 


The post Birthplace of a King appeared first on Omnipresent-Jesus.

 •  0 comments  •  flag
Share on Twitter
Published on December 22, 2016 13:10

December 19, 2016

Thirty Year Christian: Jesus My Savior

Jesus My Savior


I knew it was approaching. The calendar I bought  for the New Year had a few months from 2016 at the beginning. On day one after I unwrapped the day-keeper, I found December and put a circle around December 12, that is my wife’s birthday. A week later would be Monday, December 19, 2016. That is my birthday, the day I celebrate becoming born-again. It was on a Friday evening in the parsonage of the Associate Pastor, Theologos, where God had opened my heart. It had been a few months since the gestation period had begun. But on that fateful night, God would deliver me from the realm of darkness into the Kingdom of the Son of His love. I have mentally rehearsed the events of that encounter many times over the years. They are as fresh to me then as the morning after. The details are not significant, but the result is what really matters. That night, I realized that Jesus was my Lord. I cried out to Him. I acknowledged in that single simple creed: Jesus my Savior, what I have since then sought to understand with increasing clarity, that Jesus Christ is the Second Person of the Trinity, He is God the Son, God manifest in the flesh, the True God and everlasting life, the Mighty God, indeed, God, forever blessed. He that calls on the name of YAHWEH will be saved. He that acknowledges Jesus as Lord (read, YAHWEH) will be saved. This is no intellectual or spiritual accomplishment. It is a divine miracle, a divine revelation that mortal sinners would take the name of Christ on their lips in adoring faith. Yet that is what happened to me thirty years ago today. Praise God, from Whom all blessings flow. I owe it to God alone, to Christ’s sacrificial and substitutionary work alone, as revealed in the Bible alone, and to His glory alone, that I have been saved in faith alone. Hallelujah, what a Savior!



The post Thirty Year Christian: Jesus My Savior appeared first on Omnipresent-Jesus.

 •  0 comments  •  flag
Share on Twitter
Published on December 19, 2016 13:23

December 12, 2016

Knowledge of Jesus

Do you have true knowledge of Jesus Christ?


If there ever was a verse that clearly showed that true knowledge of Jesus as the Son of God is a supernatural revelation and not a human discovery, it is Matthew 16.17. Jesus assures Peter that flesh and blood has not revealed the truth to him, but that the Father in heaven had. The stark implication is that no human accomplishment can uncover this saving knowledge of Jesus as the Christ, the Son of God.


This verse, and the truth it affirms, remains troublesome for those who feel that all we need is the right information. It remains a challenge to all those who consider the ability of man as supreme in spiritual matters. This text is surely a thorn in the flesh of those who assert that all you need is the will to believe. This Matthean text is similar to Paul’s declaration that the natural man does not receive spiritual truth for it is spiritually discerned. Also, John the Apostle affirms that the one who believes that Jesus is the Christ is born of God. In God’s universe, where each individual is born spiritually dead, it requires the regenerating power of God to awaken sinners from their death to new life, so that they may believe.


Saving knowledge of Christ is not a clever deduction but a supernatural revelation. God reveals the truth of His Son to whom He will. That Jesus of Nazareth is the promised Messiah, the Anointed or Christ, and moreover, is the Son of the Living God, is only true of those privileged to be shown the mysteries of the kingdom. For others, it has not been given for them to know these truths. Praise God if you are one of the chosen that now has this truth in a fragile earthen vessel. You owe your saving knowledge to God, Who supernaturally revealed it to you.



The post Knowledge of Jesus appeared first on Omnipresent-Jesus.

 •  0 comments  •  flag
Share on Twitter
Published on December 12, 2016 20:56

December 8, 2016

The True God Appeared in the Flesh

Jesus Christ, the True God, appeared in the Flesh.


Soon after the New Testament Apostolic era emerged two avenues of thought that sought to question the humanity and deity of Christ. On the One hand were the Ebionites, who were a group of Jewish- Christian ascetics. Their name comes from the Hebrew ebyonim, the poor. Though they have various beliefs, it is their rejection of the deity of Jesus that concerns us. The Ebionites believed that Jesus was a natural man and nothing more. Jesus was the prophet that was to come into the world but there was nothing miraculous about his conception and birth. This sect affirmed that Jesus is the son of Mary and Joseph. So, here we have a merely human Jesus. This idea later morphed into the doctrine of Psilanthropism, from the Greek psilos (mere) and anthropos (man).


The other group was Gnostic, and  they embraced some measure of Christianity. The problem that they had with the Biblical picture of Christ was his humanity. Though it is mostly evident that Jesus was clearly a man when we examine the records, for the Docetic Gnostics this was an impossibility. As God, the Son could not really touch matter. The name of these heretics was Docetists, from the Greek dokeo (seem), hence Jesus only appeared to be Human. Because these Gnostics were radically dualist in their affirmation of reality, the Spiritual Son of God could not truly be incarnate in flesh, for flesh is inherently sinful.


In a previous post, I cited 2 John. It is an important book as it addresses the issue of whether the Son came in the Flesh. It is unequivocal in the claim that those that deny that Jesus, the Son of God came in the Flesh is an antichrist. This is severe language, indeed. The Apostle John also said something similar in 1 John as well: “And every spirit that confesseth not that Jesus Christ is come in the flesh is not of God: and this is that spirit of antichrist, whereof ye have heard that it should come; and even now already is it in the world” (1 John 4:3).


John also addressed the matter of Christ’s deity in the First letter. Near the very end of this epistle, he says, “And we know that the Son of God is come, and hath given us an understanding, that we may know him that is true, and we are in him that is true, even in his Son Jesus Christ. This is the true God, and eternal life” (1 John 5:20, emphasis added). Notice that the antecedent to the designation “true God” is Jesus Christ. Of course, John has established the deity of Jesus Christ in his gospel, and his letters hold that same dogma.


Both these heresies rear their ugly heads every so often. The way to counter them is to remain as closely to Scripture as possible in our theological descriptions. Jesus Christ, God and Man in one person, namely, one person in two natures. The Person of Jesus is truly human and truly divine. This is the true orthodox position. Praise Jesus!



 


The post The True God Appeared in the Flesh appeared first on Omnipresent-Jesus.

 •  0 comments  •  flag
Share on Twitter
Published on December 08, 2016 16:49

December 6, 2016

2 John: A Christological Epistle


 


A Christological Epistle.



Ὁ πρεσβύτερος ἐκλεκτῇ κυρίᾳ καὶ τοῖς τέκνοις αὐτῆς, οὓς ἐγὼ ἀγαπῶ ἐν ἀληθείᾳ, καὶ οὐκ ἐγὼ μόνος, ἀλλὰ καὶ πάντες οἱ ἐγνωκότες τὴν ἀλήθειαν,διὰ τὴν ἀλήθειαν τὴν μένουσαν ἐν ἡμῖν, καὶ μεθ᾿ ἡμῶν ἔσται εἰς τὸν αἰῶνα·ἔσται μεθ᾿ ὑμῶν χάρις, ἔλεος, εἰρήνη παρὰ Θεοῦ πατρὸς καὶ παρὰ Κυρίου ᾿Ιησοῦ Χριστοῦ τοῦ υἱοῦ τοῦ πατρός, ἐν ἀληθείᾳ καὶ ἀγάπῃ.


᾿Εχάρην λίαν ὅτι εὕρηκα ἐκ τῶν τέκνων σου περιπατοῦντας ἐν ἀληθείᾳ, καθὼς ἐντολὴν ἐλάβομεν παρὰ τοῦ πατρός.καὶ νῦν ἐρωτῶ σε, κυρία, οὐχ ὡς ἐντολὴν γράφων σοι καινήν, ἀλλὰ ἣν εἴχομεν ἀπ᾿ ἀρχῆς, ἵνα ἀγαπῶμεν ἀλλήλους.καὶ αὕτη ἐστὶν ἡ ἀγάπη, ἵνα περιπατῶμεν κατὰ τὰς ἐντολὰς αὐτοῦ. αὕτη ἐστὶν ἡ ἐντολή, καθὼς ἠκούσατε ἀπ᾿ ἀρχῆς, ἵνα ἐν αὐτῇ περιπατῆτε.ὅτι πολλοὶ πλάνοι εἰσῆλθον εἰς τὸν κόσμον, οἱ μὴ ὁμολογοῦντες ᾿Ιησοῦν Χριστὸν ἐρχόμενον ἐν σαρκί· οὗτός ἐστιν ὁ πλάνος καὶ ὁ ἀντίχριστος.βλέπετε ἑαυτούς, ἵνα μὴ ἀπολέσωμεν ἃ εἰργασάμεθα, ἀλλὰ μισθὸν πλήρη ἀπολάβωμεν.πᾶς ὁ παραβαίνων καὶ μὴ μένων ἐν τῇ διδαχῇ τοῦ Χριστοῦ Θεὸν οὐκ ἔχει· ὁ μένων ἐν τῇ διδαχῇ τοῦ Χριστοῦ, οὗτος καὶ τὸν πατέρα καὶ τὸν υἱὸν ἔχει.εἴ τις ἔρχεται πρὸς ὑμᾶς καὶ ταύτην τὴν διδαχὴν οὐ φέρει, μὴ λαμβάνετε αὐτὸν εἰς οἰκίαν, καὶ χαίρειν αὐτῷ μὴ λέγετε·ὁ γὰρ λέγων αὐτῷ χαίρειν κοινωνεῖ τοῖς ἔργοις αὐτοῦ τοῖς πονηροῖς.


Πολλὰ ἔχων ὑμῖν γράφειν, οὐκ ἠβουλήθην διὰ χάρτου καὶ μέλανος, ἀλλὰ ἐλπίζω ἐλθεῖν πρὸς ὑμᾶς καὶ στόμα πρὸς στόμα λαλῆσαι, ἵνα ἡ χαρὰ ἡμῶν ᾖ πεπληρωμένη.ἀσπάζεταί σε τὰ τέκνα τῆς ἀδελφῆς σου τῆς ἐκλεκτῆς· ἀμήν.


 


2 John


1The elder unto the elect lady and her children, whom I love in truth; and not I only, but also all they that know the truth; 2for the truth’s sake which abideth in us, and it shall be with us for ever: 3Grace, mercy, peace shall be with us, from God the Father, and from Jesus Christ, the Son of the Father, in truth and love. 4I rejoice greatly that I have found i of thy children walking in truth, even as we received commandment from the Father. 5And now I beseech thee, lady, not as though I wrote to thee a new commandment, but that which we had from the beginning, that we love one another. 6And this is love, that we should walk after his commandments. This is the commandment, even as ye heard from the beginning, that ye should walk in it. 7For many deceivers are gone forth into the world, [even] they that confess not that Jesus Christ cometh in the flesh. This is the deceiver and the antichrist. 8Look to yourselves, that ye lose not the things which we have wrought, but that ye receive a full reward. 9Whosoever goeth onward and abideth not in the teaching of Christ, hath not God: he that abideth in the teaching, the same hath both the Father and the Son. 10If any one cometh unto you, and bringeth not this teaching, receive him not into [your] house, and give him no greeting: 11for he that giveth him greeting partaketh in his evil works. 12Having many things to write unto you, I would not [write them] with paper and ink: but I hope to come unto you, and to speak face to face, that your joy may be made full. 13The children of thine elect sister salute thee.


(Emphasis added)





The post 2 John: A Christological Epistle appeared first on Omnipresent-Jesus.

 •  0 comments  •  flag
Share on Twitter
Published on December 06, 2016 22:32