SAMT

Summary Against Modern Thought: Errors About The Incarnation I

Previous post.

We begin several weeks refuting arguments claiming Jesus was not the Word Incarnated. I cannot promise it won’t grow obscure.

ON THE ERROR OF PROTINUS ABOUT THE INCARNATION

1 There are, of course, those who have debased Scripture and have conceived a perverse understanding of the divinity and humanity of our Lord Jesus Christ.

2 For there have been some, like Ebion and Cerinthus, and, later, Paul of Samosata and Photinus, who confess in Christ a human nature only. But divinity was in Him, not by nature, but by a kind of outstanding participation of divine glory which He had merited by His deeds. Hence, they fabricate, as was said above.

Notes This sort of error is well with us today. Strange, then, that it’s the easiest error to refute.

3 But, to pass over the other things said against this position above, this position destroys the Incarnation’s mystery.

4 For, according to this position, God would not have assumed flesh to become man; rather, an earthly man would have become God. Thus, the saying of John (1:14) would not be true: “The Word was made flesh”; on the contrary, flesh would have been made the Word.

5 In the same way, also, emptying Himself and descent would not fit the Son of God; rather, glorification and ascent would fit the man. Thus, there would be no truth in the Apostle’s saying: “Who being in the form of God emptied Himself, taking the form of a servant” (Phil. 2:6-7, 9), but only in the exaltation of the man to divine glory about which he adds later: “For which cause God also has exalted Him.”

6 Neither would there be truth in our Lord’s word: “I came down from heaven,” but only in His saying: “I ascend to My Father,” in spite of the Scripture which joins these two, for our Lord says: “No one has ascended into heaven, except him who descended from heaven, the Son of man who is in heaven” (John 6:38; 20:17; 3:13); and, again: “He who descended is the same who ascended above all the heavens” (Eph. 4: 10).

7 Thus, also, it would not become the Son to have been sent by the Father, nor to have gone out from the Father to come into the world, but only to go to the Father, although He Himself, for all that, unites the two, saying: “I go to Him that sent Me?” and “I came forth from the Father, and am come into the world: again I leave the world, and I go to the Father” (John 16:5, 28). In each of these cases both the humanity and the divinity is established.

Notes There we are. You either reject scripture, or you don’t. Simple as that. There aren’t any ambiguities in interpretation for this error, just stubborn disbelief.

Categories: SAMT

16 replies »

  1. I have no doubt whatsoever that the “Logos”, God’s knowledge and expression of Himself, could or would become a Man to satisfy both Justice and Mercy according to His Intention that manifests His total goodness, but I have some difficulty in trying to conceptualise how the two natures co exist.

    Never mind, with a bit of humility I might have the rest of infinity to grasp it.

  2. I really appreciate the straight forward points and the simplicity in which you presented it. The profound depth yet simplicity is so… Jesus. I appreciate this very much. Points to ponder for sure!

  3. The three Abrahamic religions (“the peoples of the book”) are Judaism, Christianity, and Islam.
    Judaism requires scholarship.
    Islam requires scholarship and action.
    Christianity requires scholarship, thought, and action.

    This tells you which is true.

  4. To think on: “6 His nature is, from the first, divine, and yet he did not see, in the rank of Godhead, a prize to be coveted;
    7 he dispossessed himself, and took the nature of a slave, fashioned in the likeness of men, and presenting himself to us in human form;
    8 and then he lowered his own dignity, accepted an obedience which brought him to death, death on a cross.
    9 That is why God has raised him to such a height, given him that name which is greater than any other name;
    10 so that everything in heaven and on earth and under the earth must bend the knee before the name of Jesus,
    11 and every tongue must confess Jesus Christ as the Lord, dwelling in the glory of God the Father.”

    God bless, C-Marie

  5. And …

    Regarding the three Abrahamic Religions, so-called three, because of false claims by Islam. Islam claims the faith of Abraham, but does not accept Isaac through whom God fulfilled His promise, wholly denies Who Jesus Christ is, and so much more.

    Judaism denies Who Jesus is, and still awaits the Messiah. God is working with them for they are His people.

    Here is the truth regarding Abraham …. He believed God, did God’s will, and thus begot the son of God’s promise ….. Isaac.

    “15 This, too, God said to Abraham, Thou shalt call thy wife Sarai not Sarai but Sara, the princess.
    16 Her I will bless, giving thee a son by her; and him, too, I will bless, giving him whole nations for his posterity; kings with their peoples shall take their origin from him.
    17 At this, Abraham fell prostrate before him; but in his heart he said, laughing at the thought, Shall I have a son when I am a hundred years old? Will Sara, with all her ninety years, become a mother?
    18 And this was what he asked of God, If only thou wilt grant life to Ismael!
    19 But God said to Abraham, Thou shalt have a son by thy wife Sara, and shalt give him the name of Isaac; it is to him and to the race which shall follow him that I will make good my promise, ratified for ever.
    20 As for Ismael, for him too I grant thy prayer; be sure that I will bless him, and make him fruitful, and grant him increase beyond all measure, so that he will be the father of twelve chieftains. From him, too, a great nation shall arise;
    21 but when I make good this promise of mine, it will be for Isaac, the son thou wilt have, at this time next year, by thy wife Sara.” Genesis 17: 15-21.

    God bless, C-Marie

  6. Really? Why would an all loving god allow innocent babies to die? god could save every one and that would maybe convince of god’s existence. Read Kuhn and Massey for some background on the myths.

  7. Nothing new under the Sun, Barry.

    There’s a long line of smarties who think they can see everything from the vantage of having their head stuck up their own arse desperate to “inform” God how to run the show. Join the queue!

    Even way before the mob of Jewish narcissists implicitly said to Jesus if You were really the Messiah You’d do what we say and go and whack those Romans on the way to taking over the whole World for our dominion.

    There doesn’t seem to have ever been a shortage of people demanding a compliant god. Moloch is alive and well these days… perhaps it’ll promise you favours if you do homage… to start off with you don’t really have to do anything but think you’re the arbiter “knowing good and evil”.

  8. For there have been some, like Ebion and Cerinthus, and, later, Paul of Samosata and Photinus, who confess in Christ a human nature only.

    Thus proving that there has always been disagreement about even the most basic Christian claims. It’s almost as if it was made up.

  9. Oldavid,

    There doesn’t seem to have ever been a shortage of people demanding a compliant god.

    Nor a shortage of people demanding compliance with their gods.

    Asking why God allows suffering (such as babies dying) isn’t “demanding a compliant god”, it’s just asking why the world we see is totally inconsistent with it being created by a loving God.

  10. Always disagreements and controversies and heresies and denials and martyrdoms and more among people. Oh yes, people believe all sorts of things. Believing Him Who is the Truth, calms the believer into Christ’s peace. We can believe Jesus or not. We can believe the Biblical records of Jesus Christ and His Life, or not. We are responsible for that which we believe.

    When God created the world, there was no sin. We human beings are responsible for the suffering of the babies. Know that mothers murder their unborn babies to the number of 3,000 a day in the United States of America. That number comes out to 90,000 or so babies a month, mudered in their mothers’ wombs in one month, and 1,080,000or so babies a year … in the United States alone.

    We know our time in the earth will come to an end. Obey God now. Adore Him and His Son. Live by the leading and guiding of the Holy Spirit. Read God’s Word and be willing to believe, and He will make it real to you. Stubbornness does not being salvation.

    God bless, C-Marie

  11. C-Marie,

    When God created the world, there was no sin. We human beings are responsible for the suffering of the babies. Know that mothers murder their unborn babies to the number of 3,000 a day in the United States of America. That number comes out to 90,000 or so babies a month, mudered in their mothers’ wombs in one month, and 1,080,000or so babies a year … in the United States alone.

    1. There’s no evidence that God exists or that he created the world, but for the sake of argument, God must have created us with either a reason to sin, or an ability to sin for no reason. In either case, that’s on him.

    2. If all human and animal suffering is the result of that first sin, then that consequence is also on God – he could have punished just Adam and Eve, but he chose to punish every living thing that will ever live as well. Genesis would make more sense if it said “God was an evil monster so he punished everyone”.

    3. A foetus isn’t conscious of anything, so abortion isn’t murder, any more than turning off the life support machine of someone who is brain dead is murder. According to the stats I can find, there were 620,000 abortions in the USA in 2020, but there were also 500,0000 miscarriages, which are natural abortions. But I suppose those 500,000 abortions are justified by Eve eating an apple?

    Thank you for your blessing.

  12. You are a creepy fellow, Fishy.

    The evidence that God exists is always and everywhere around us. The mere fact that contingent things (contingent as in cannot exist by themselves and of themselves) exist is ample evidence of an anterior and superior origin. Anything that is changing or changeable cannot be eternal because it is never what it was or will be. The alternative is the irrational, absurd (as in self-contradictory) assumption that Nothing can, and does, turn itself into Everything without cause or purpose. A notion so abysmally stupid that only a diabolically narcissistic possessor of arcane and occult fancies could subscribe to it.

    Yair, the first sin and all subsequent sins are God’s fault because He didn’t make us as unconscious automatons without intellect and will and unable to recognise or choose good and evil, true and false, purpose and perversity. God haters are always revoltingly inconsistent. On the one hand they demand the “freedom” to indulge disordered passions, inclinations, urges, fantastically stupid ideas, and on the other hand want to blame God for the results of their vices.

    Your next revolting assertion makes me feel physically sick. Babies in utero respond to all sorts of stimulus from a very early age; the mood and angst of the mother, even sounds and activities outside the womb. From the moment of conception that child has no propensity to be anything other than a human man or woman. The stages of development that we all go through is no indication of the intrinsic worth or potential or purpose of the being. A spontaneous miscarriage is always a grief for the mother but for some immediately, humanly inscrutable purpose. Procured “miscarriages” deliberately induced by chemical or other means, are directly attributable to the perverse intentions of the procurer.

    I can only guess that if your mother had taken you off her breast and thrown you in the trash it wouldn’t matter because at that time you hadn’t realised that you were smarter than God and had a great mission to inform the World that “God is dead” and that the dominance of an “enlightened” elite (i.e. survival of the fittest) is the only way “forward” in the inevitable dialectic of competition that unrelentingly progresses to the “Omega Point” of total consciousness.

    Bah! Hubris’ greatest (or only) ally is deception. You think you’re really up-to-date clever but your “cleverness” is older than Moloch.

  13. Oldavid,

    The mere fact that contingent things (contingent as in cannot exist by themselves and of themselves) exist is ample evidence of an anterior and superior origin.

    Heard it all before. By defining the universe as something that “cannot exist by itself”, you’re begging the question. Why can’t the universe just exist? Under your scheme, a triune God just exists.

    The alternative is the irrational, absurd (as in self-contradictory) assumption that Nothing can, and does, turn itself into Everything without cause or purpose.

    The alternative is the irrational, absurd (as in self-contradictory) assumption that Nothing can, and does, turn itself into an amazing three-in-one space ghost without cause or purpose.

    Yair, the first sin and all subsequent sins are God’s fault because He didn’t make us as unconscious automatons without intellect and will and unable to recognise or choose good and evil, true and false, purpose and perversity.

    According to Genesis, Adam and Eve didn’t know the difference between good and evil before eating the forbidden fruit, so that doesn’t add up. And yes, God is responsible for his creation – how could he not be? He’s responsible for the fact that it exists in the first place, and he’s responsible for the design of it, including that of our minds. Tell me, if God wanted to, could he have made Eve less trusting, so she wouldn’t have believed the snake, whilst she’d still have had the ability to chose?

    And incidentally:

    1. God is responsible for the snake being there.

    2. God is responsible for deciding what the consequences of Eve’s “sin” will be. Wouldn’t a good God have chosen a short timeout rather than inflicting death and suffering on all of nature for all time? That seems like the most extreme overreaction ever.

    Babies in utero respond to all sorts of stimulus from a very early age; the mood and angst of the mother, even sounds and activities outside the womb.

    Plants also respond to stimuli, but they aren’t conscious, so this proves nothing.

    Procured “miscarriages” deliberately induced by chemical or other means, are directly attributable to the perverse intentions of the procurer.

    How do you know what someone else’s intentions are perverse? What if a woman has been raped? And what has it got to do with you what women do with their own bodies anyway?

    You think you’re really up-to-date clever but your “cleverness” is older than Moloch.

    I had to google Moloch. It seems there is scholarly debate as to whether the word Moloch refers to a diety or to the practise of child sacrifice. There is also debate about whether this type of sacrifice was originally made to Yahweh.

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published.