< Part 2: Concerns on the Person of Christ
Although we were initially going to alternate posts to deal with the questions of Christ, the Atonement, and salvation, there is enough material which needs clarity and care that for this week, Dave continues as planned; next week, we’ll do a back-and-forth dialogue between us to wrap up our look at Christ’s person. Dave is currently working a more-than-full-time job, and just came off a set of night shifts that included little sleep, so we’ll take our time and do this well, rather than in a careless rush.
Teachings on the Person of Christ
To quote Cat from last week, “The specific underlying context must also be examined. Commonality of language is useful only when assigned word meanings are in agreement.”
As I read NGJ quotes, the picture that comes to mind is a house built without floor joists — looks good, same materials, you walk in and fall through because there’s no support. Similar are the words describing the person and actions of Christ in the Mormon doctrines, with a few obvious differences. The point here is the differences in meanings while using the same “Christian” jargon.
Sustaining Relationship
“…Jesus Christ…the eternal God, mutually, voluntarily, eternally, sustaining to God the Father that relationship of a son.” (See last week’s post for full quotes and background context to today’s points)
This sounded pretty good to me on first reading. Then the word “sustaining” caught my eye. Sustaining implies it could fall apart and that it has to be held together. The eternal, infinite character of God demands that this be impossible. The immutability of God demands that no “sustaining” be necessary. We are sustained, creation is sustained, God IS. John 8:58 “…before Abraham was, I AM” Not was, but AM. Outside time, eternal, infinite. Infiniteness cannot be sustained. Otherwise it wouldn’t be infinite.
“kept the commandments of God and maintained a character sufficient to merit him a place in God’s presence.”"
OK, again, who are we talking about here? I thought he was referring to Christ? According to scripture (John 1:1,2) Christ was, already existing, in the beginning. Also, He was, and IS, God. Therefore by definition of who He is, he has a place in God’s presence. There was no need to merit (work for) anything. Christ could do no other thing but to fulfill the law, as He was perfect, being God, and He wrote it. To add to this, there was only one time in all history (Mark 15:34), and prehistory ad infinitum, that Christ was separated from the father. This was by mutual choice of all members of the Godhead and was short lived as Christ himself said on the cross to the one thief, “today you shall be with me in Paradise.” Luke 23:43
One other quick thought. If He was God, how could he be out of His own presence?
Aspects of Faithfulness and the Question of Merit
“By his faithfulness and good works, he became the first man… that merited favor with God”
Christ did not do it by faith, He is the object of our faith. What was He to have faith in? He is God. From another side, “His faithfulness and good works” Okay, He was faithful and obeyed the Father in every way including following the law. Yes, but unlike what is stated by Pearl, this was not what merited Him favour with God. He was never out of favour with the Father. God could not look on our sin that was laid on Him at the Cross, but Christ was never out of favour. Yes, He did good works. Perfect works actually. If He didn’t do these things, he would not have been God. He is God, so what He did was and is perfect. Sorry for the rant, I’m just a little touchy about that. One last point. There was NOTHING that He could do to merit God’s favour. He never lost it, therefore he couldn’t gain it.
“So God gave him authority”
Yes, God gave Christ authority, but not because he merited it. This was the plan since before creation. Mutually agreed upon before man ever existed. Christ had the authority by definition of who he is. (Eph. 1)
“[Christ] lived a life of obedience to God…was accounted a worthy substitute”
This statement implies that Christ’s finite (human) actions could pay an infinite penalty by rendering Him a worthy sacrifice. It was an infinite offense. Christ was the only person to be able to propitiate for us because He is the only person that is infinite. Yes, He came to earth and was in human form, lived a perfect life, but he was to be sent as our substitute and conqueror from the beginning. (Gen. 3:15) His life didn’t make Him worthy. He WAS worthy.
“Everyone has violated his own God-given understanding of right and wrong, resulting in personal condemnation”
Adamic Righteousness and Unrighteousness
It is not wrong that we have personal sin and are accountable for that, but we were accountable in Adam before we ever personally sinned. (Nevertheless death reigned from Adam until Moses, Rom. 5) This faulty logic comes from Pearl’s unbiblical view of the state in which Adam and Eve were created.
“God created Adam and Eve to be righteous, but he did not create them righteous.”
As I always say, we have to go back to the attributes/character of God Himself. God created man in His own image. Check. God IS righteous. Check. Adam and Eve, as created, had no sin. Check. Here comes the big leap in logic…. Wait for it…. Adam and Eve were created righteous. We will enter into a perfect state and realization of righteousness (yes, in Christ we are counted as righteous) when ‘We shall see Him as He is.’
Beloved, now are we the sons of God, and it doth not yet appear what we shall be: but we know that, when he shall appear, we shall be like him; for we shall see him as he is. ~1 John 3:2
More next week.
for catholics this is old news. we killed a lot of heretics for this same christological “error.” but then jp2 resurrected it with his luminous mysteries, which remain controversial, but still a favorite of new school uber catholics.
michael pearl thinks he’s a god. obviously these people believe they have some kind of “secret teaching.” that’s why he’s his own minister with like 36 congregants or something. this is the oldest gnostic heresy in the book: jesus became god. he ascended and he sustains god. because man is god. more specifically, michael pearl and all the other “sinless” men are gods.
i guarantee you this is just the tip of the iceberg of their “secret teachings” and the rest involve sex. like every other cult since the beginning of time. these people are so obvious it’s amazing to me that they were able to gain so much traction. it’s sad. it just goes to show exactly why these people should not be homeschooling their children. they can’t even discern a devil in their midsts.
and we can’t just blame them. religion everywhere seems to be just a big cover for child abuse and exploitation and the so called good christians are not the real christianity. just a bunch of dupes and perverts.
Lottie, thanks for joining us. Due to the approach you’ve chosen to take on the Facebook group page and your blog, I’ll probably just give you one warning here: Scienda’s community participation guidelines are actually pretty strict on tone. This is a reasonably high-level discussion space, not a rant forum, and you’re going to have to show evidence for your statements.
“michael pearl thinks he’s a god. obviously these people believe they have some kind of “secret teaching.” ”
You would need to document that and demonstrate it. In my experience so far, the claims are quite overt.
“more specifically, michael pearl and all the other “sinless” men are gods.”
That’s actually not how it’s reading in the greater context of NGJ at this point. It can be a point in some cases, but we and the people we’re consulting with are noticing the blend is subtler than that. Again, if you can show a thread of thinking from the books and articles, I encourage you to do so. I don’t believe we’re going to nail down a specific stream of gnosticism — it just happens to be a twist of thinking that seems to have crept in.
“i guarantee you this is just the tip of the iceberg of their “secret teachings” and the rest involve sex.”
Again, you need to show documentation from the ministry’s materials in order to make such an accusation.
“these people are so obvious it’s amazing to me that they were able to gain so much traction. it’s sad. it just goes to show exactly why these people should not be homeschooling their children. they can’t even discern a devil in their midsts.”
Your conclusion (“shouldn’t be homeschooling”) needs to match your premises (“can’t discern”), which needs to be founded on fact. Linda’s now finding links from people who do in fact discern the problem after using the materials. Many other analyses show the struggle people are having in sorting the doctrinally flawed elements in NGJ teachings, even as they’re sincerely trying, and doing not bad with it. It’s something that can’t be judged in a 1,000 word post, and most contributors around the net are only writing one, maybe two or three items on it. A person’s life can’t reasonably be measured on that small sample.
“religion everywhere seems to be just a big cover for child abuse and exploitation and the so called good christians are not the real christianity. just a bunch of dupes and perverts.”
Statistics? Cases? On what basis do you assert this? How do you define “Christianity”? At the WNTUAC page on Facebook, you went from saying it’s all Christianity’s fault, and Christianity should be banned by the government, to claiming that you think Jesus gave you these people to verbally abuse as they’ve verbally abused others (something that can be shown from their articles, at least). Quote:
Again, you need more than opinion and rant to make a case, and you’re going to want to do that around here. We take each other’s thoughts apart, kindly and gently, but we do analyze them for consistency and quality in order to make the best thinkers possible out of one another and ourselves. You can expect your statements to be treated equally with anyone else’s.
Have a good day.
oh, man. i missed this. sorry. yeah, yeah, you want to hold their hands to death. i get it.
anyway, look at the nestorian heresy. that’s what he’s doing. it’s pretty standard stuff.
oh yeah, i’m mean. they deserve it. if anybody deserves it, it’s them. and i enjoy doing it. so when you’re done killing them with kindness, meh, good luck with that one, and you’re ready for somebody to speak their language, come on over to bad charaters. it’s a good time!!!!
[Moderator's note: in accordance with community policy, this commenter is on restricted status]
hey, are you sure your name’s not Lotta?
*cough* Right…
It’s dealt with, Mr. Furious.
I wouldn’t want anyone to get hurt. 
Nicely done, 1-ton. No disagreement, just a few comments:
“Christ was, already existing, in the beginning.”
As God the son, the 2nd person of the Trinity, not with regard to his humanity, correct?
“There was NOTHING that He could do to merit God’s favour. He never lost it, therefore he couldn’t gain it.”
This is a good and subtle point, Dave. He merited God’s favor for the saved, as the 2nd Adam, not for himself.
“Mutually agreed upon before man ever existed.”
Sounds like some form of covenant…hmmmmm.
“Christ was the only person to be able to propitiate for us because He is the only person that is infinite.”
I quite agree, and would add that the unique person of Christ makes this true. To his divinity, only God could bear the sins of the world; to his humanity, since sin entered the world through the one man’s transgression, the sacrifice must also be human. Thus, Christ, being fully human and fully divine, alone is qualified to atone for sin.
Enjoying this series very much.
“As God the son, the 2nd person of the Trinity, not with regard to his humanity, correct?”
Sometimes I forget that others aren’t necessarily following my line ‘o thoughts. It can be a little less than straight at times.
Yup.
“This is a good and subtle point, Dave. He merited God’s favor for the saved, as the 2nd Adam, not for himself.”
Thanks for the addition on this one.
“Sounds like some form of covenant…hmmmmm.”
In my best teeny bopper voice, ‘WhatEverrrr, Like gag me with a spoon, OK?’
As for the last comment, thank you good sir.
I’m enjoying this series as well….and, well, it does sound like some kind of covenant, and I’ll keep my spoons to myself.
LOL Laurie, you’ve come across another standing joke around here…we tend to think in terms of dispensational systematic theology, while Marc prefers to think covenantally. We pretty much just make fun of each other for it, having a solid assurance of each other’s faith and commitment to Christ. What we definitely share is an abhorrence for dismissal of others based on “categorical” systematic theology — “you can’t possibly be a REAL Christian if you fall in (you name it) category!”
Categories do not guarantee saving faith, and cannot annul it either.
Yeah, don’t let these boys near the silverware. They are not to be trusted in their antics.
“Yeah, don’t let these boys near the silverware.”
Yeah, especially the Blue Raja, master of cutlery
“We pretty much just make fun of each other for it, having a solid assurance of each other’s faith and commitment to Christ.”
No doubt, CD.
@ Laurie, jumpin’ Jonathan Edwards, I regret that I have but one thumbs-up to use on your comment!
Glad to see the love here.
I’m a covenantal leaner myself. But then, you already figured that out. It’s a smart bunch you’ve got here. I’ll have to keep on my toes.
And, really, I’m glad to see the love here.
“Yeah, especially the Blue Raja, master of cutlery”
*snerk*
“I regret that I have but one thumbs-up”
Because you are a one-thumbed charognard, I, Hobbes, have lent you mine. But only this once, Calvin. It is all because I am such a quiet and unassuming wallflower. Bask in my charity.
(train of jest: charognard = French for scavenger = varmint = Wile E. Quixote) It’s been convoluted knowing him.
“And, really, I’m glad to see the love here.”
It’s a ruse. We Anabaptists are just busy plotting to rout these pesky institutionalized Reformers through our passive-aggressive nonresistant conscientious objecting. So far, we’ve got a GREAT potluck planned…
Anabaptists? Hmmm….well, I’m going to put my ignorance right out in the open and admit that what I know about anabaptists I could squeeze into a thimble. I do know there is more than one branch. Clearly you are not Amish. I have a Canadian friend who’s a Mennonite. I had no idea, because his wife didn’t wear the Depression era dress and headcovering which is the uniform of the women and girls in the sizable community of Mennonites here in our area. They are reclusive and easily identifiable. He explained briefly that they were a different group, more mainstream I took it. I do know a bit of the “church history” aspect of it – from an “insititutionalized Reformers” perspective of course. Also, I associate pacifism with Quakers, not anabaptists. Is this a common belief among you? (My husband was raised a Quaker, by the way, by a father who was a conscientious objector during the Vietnam Conflict. Paul has managed to retain his pacifist streak even as a covenantalist. This is considered a liberal streak here in the US. We have a lot of unpopular streaks between us. )
I hope you don’t mind all my questions. I get the feeling this is a safe place for my curiosity, and my differences in perspective.
“I get the feeling this is a safe place for my curiosity, and my differences in perspective.”
You got it.
Minor treatise:
Dave’s family, as far as I know, traces its genealogy to Russian and Swiss or Dutch roots (not clear on that last). Their ethnic language is Low German or plautdietsche, which bears a lot of resemblance to Old English but has huge dialectic range in absorbing surrounding local languages and idioms. English + plautdietsche = you can likely read Beowulf in the original without too much trouble.
Some wear headcoverings, some don’t. Of the headcovering types, skirts are church and public wear, but not always around the home for farm families. Get the job done with maximum efficiency and productivity above all else.
There is a Mennonite settlement area in Manitoba, south of Winnipeg. They were specifically recruited to come here from Russia, break the land, and create a footing for the settler drive of the 1880s. Today, those towns look and act like non-Mennonites, but retain some interesting cultural nuances such as instant trust of total strangers based on last name, followed by extensive quizzing on extended family connections. This is only being polite. One should know one’s family, and which branch of it one’s words will get back to as a result of the conversation.
Religiously, the Canadian Mennonites are extremely diverse in actual beliefs at this point in time, ranging from rank humanism, international socialism and denial of the deity of Christ (Mennonite Central Committee, an umbrella charity to which most Mennonite churches are connected) to liberal evangelical/emergent (mainstreamish denoms) to head-covering wearers (German-speaking denoms). The buggy boys are over in Ontario, mostly, though a clan migrated to our parts a couple of years back.
Dave’s family would be more along the lines of Alliance, Baptist or independent Baptist in terms of churches they’re comfortable in. The big dividing point is eternal security for most of the ethnic Mennonites we know who don’t attend Mennonite churches. For ourselves, we’re eternal security, sovereignty, sola fide types, but not TULIP/Reformed people.
The Mennonites are non-resistant in reaction to the violent aspects of Reformation history and associated religious statism, which they emphatically rejected (hence wisecracks about institutionalism).
Ironic, that. Because our military is essentially entirely about international peacekeeping (and snow removal in Toronto and Vancouver), our attitudes toward military participation are often more of a reflection on international political convictions.
Also, long live unpopular streaks! They’re very popular around here.
Y’know, I took a creative writing day and spent several hours on a literary short story. You’d think I’d run out of words, but no…
Thanks to you and Dave for all your candor.
Thank God for eternal security! The Good News leaves me hopeless without it! I’m the TULIP type, but was once quite along the same lines with you.
“We pretty much just make fun of each other for it, having a solid assurance of each other’s faith and commitment to Christ.”
This is what matters, “the solid assurance of each other’s faith and commitment” I mean. Making fun, well, it’s just fun. In fact, the labels are driving Paul and I bats lately. It’s what our most recent Iron Sharpens Iron blog post is all about.
I think one of the reasons I’m not is because as far as I grasp it, which may not be much, it’s systematically interlinked with a covenantal perspective (Quixote? Does that seem accurate?), and I don’t have sufficient grounds to reject the dispensational system.
I realized after Quixote and I tripped over this five different ways, though, that I need to differentiate that from American dispensational fad eschatology/religious politics with no Scriptural basis. We don’t swing that way.
I seriously need to get over to ISI and have a read. I saw your link on Twitter. It’s been a work weekend for me (this is called sorta coffee break?), and I keep finding more. All good.
We are going to get along fabulously.
Oh my, could it be??? Run out of words? Oh, that was a joke. My bad. And yes, Laurie, by all means, ask away. I consider myself culturally Mennonite. Certainly not religeously. Most Menno church attending types wouldn’t consider me Mennonite anyway. I’ve never attended a Menno church. This is one reason I identify as an Anabaptist. Also, with all the anti biblical junk that is being embraced by most Menno churches, I wouldn’t and couldn’t associate with them. The people, sure, the organization, no.
“Oh my, could it be??? Run out of words? Oh, that was a joke. My bad.”
You very bad. I deal with you later.
“This is one reason I identify as an Anabaptist.”
From what I understand, the word has more Arminian context to it in the States, like with actual systematic theology involved as opposed to the seething morass of blithe indifference we’re used to here in Canada, which is why it may not come across as the best reflection of our views in cross-cultural terms.
“The people, sure, the organization, no.”
In terms of feeling comfortable attending, yeah…we’re not here to force our convictions on anyone, or compromise them to fit square pegs into round holes. In terms of working with the organizations to bring in biblical support where there’s a level of interest, that’s what we do.
“Because you are a one-thumbed charognard, I, Hobbes, have lent you mine.”
Thanks, CD…much obliged.
“it’s systematically interlinked with a covenantal perspective”
Perhaps not, CD. Covenant theology as a systematic theology postdates the life of Calvin, I think. I know Jonathan Edwards wrote extensively on dispensations as well, so it’s probably just that most Reformed theologians are covenant theologians, by and large. It certainly does not seem to be a requirement.
I’m trying to think which petal of TULIP would be denied by a dispensational systematic theology. None jumps out at me as obvious…
I can’t remember. It was months ago when I came across the possible connection. I realize there are plenty of TULIP dispies — MacArthur etc. It was just that I noticed what appeared to be a necessary predicate in the thinking. It may have something to do with some of the modern iterations of the two, rather than historic expressions. I’d have to look back and see if I actually made any note of it.
I was TULIP before I was Covenantal. I’m Covenantal for a number of reasons, but not as Covenantal as some. (We’re baptists for starters.) I’m also not set on an eschatological position. I lean toward amillennial – but not very sharply. I’m just not convinced at the moment, and don’t have the time to research it further. The thing I can say I’m not is pre-trib.
I can’t really speak to the difference between American Dispensationalism and any other form. American is all I know – which is so typically American of me, I know.
The anabaptists here are definitely associated with Arminianism. I know this mainly because I looked them up on-line once and read their statement of faith. I’ll admit, I was overcome with curiosity over these mild, quiet folks who I see all over the place but have never once been able to engage in conversation. I read far enough to know that they would never welcome the likes of me into their ranks, and pretty much gave up reading after that.
My Canadian Mennonite friend I mentioned earlier, though I’ve not questioned him about it, seems about like a mainstream American evangelical theologically (without the American political right-wing bent of course). If memory serves, he and I cut the teeth of our friendship over a discussion on the theology of C.S. Lewis. We disagreed sharply and have been friends on-line ever since.
I’m enjoying the discussion here immensely, btw
“I can’t really speak to the difference between American Dispensationalism and any other form. American is all I know – which is so typically American of me, I know.”
LOL Well, frankly, I didn’t really realize how much of a sideshow it is south of the border on certain points, particularly political ones. We’re just not into setting the date of Jesus’ return, hiding out in the hills with our militia in case the government comes for us, or telling people they’re going to hell if they don’t support a given wing of Israeli politics.
“I’ll admit, I was overcome with curiosity over these mild, quiet folks who I see all over the place but have never once been able to engage in conversation.”
We love the German wing of the family/clan/loose-knit international tribe. I definitely do. It’s a culture of laughter in a lot of ways.
“My Canadian Mennonite friend I mentioned earlier, though I’ve not questioned him about it, seems about like a mainstream American evangelical”
Yep. As Dave mentioned, it’s more of an ethnic designation. It functions to place people in the multicultural milieu of Canadian society.
“We disagreed sharply and have been friends on-line ever since.”
Perfect!
“I’m enjoying the discussion here immensely, btw”
Likewise. Re eternal security, we were just reading Ecclesiastes for family time this morning, and Dave pointed out 3:14:
I know that everything God does will remain forever; there is nothing to add to it and there is nothing to take from it, for God has so worked that men should fear Him.
“I know that everything God does will remain forever; there is nothing to add to it and there is nothing to take from it, for God has so worked that men should fear Him.”
Beautiful application….
It reminded me of something I like to say about eternal life: “It’s eternal.”
That very idea came up at Quixote’s recently (see here).
Pingback: Parenting in the Name of God, Part 4 « Scita > Scienda
we’re eternal security, sovereignty, sola fide types, but not TULIP/Reformed people.
The trick is securing eternal security and recognizing the sovereignty of God without accepting the whole flower. I haven’t seen it done successfully yet, which is why this Manitoba-born Mennonite lad ended up as a TULIP-teaching Reformed elder in Denver. Well, not the Denver part. That was more related to housing and friends out here, and God’s sovereign plan. If we accept that sinners are spiritually dead (Ephesians 2, Romans 8, Colossians 2), the scent of tulip bouquets on the casket are the only solution to arriving at a consistent soteriology. Still, I have great love and patience for my friends who don’t like flowers. Some day they’re sure to appreciate the aroma!
I don’t know about that. I have a pretty well-informed ex-Catholic contact who believes that view is only necessary if people insist on viewing it in terms of Arminian vs. Calvinist. So much so that he’s writing a book on the subject. I’m interested to see what he produces.
Every book I’ve seen (and there are many out there) that claims to transcend Arminian/Calvinist–or better, synergist/monergist– categories, ends up coming down in favor of the Arminian/synergist because there really are no other options. Salvation is of God alone, or God plus something.
I don’t know what he’s got planned. We ended up talking ACFW, independent ministry platforms, etc. From what he said, I don’t think “transcend” is the right word for his attitude toward it.
As far as escaping the Mennonite trends, I’m more immediately concerned that we were recently handed a brochure for a one-day seminar in Winnipeg on sex and tolerance, involving all the usual suspects from MB to EMC to MCC, and featuring a gay couple educating the unwashed masses on how to be more Christlike and inclusive toward their lifestyle. Goes straight to Carl’s observations from the Phyllis Tickle presentation.
Keep me posted on your friend; as for the Mennonites…
I’m confused. The gay couple goes straight? Isn’t that a good thing?
Yeah, that would be…but it isn’t…
I know, SO confusing. {ditzy hair toss}