To go back to the Preaching Home Page Click Here.
Jesus Christ is the Son of God (not "God the Son, " a phrase not found in Scripture), begotten of the Virgin Mary by the power of the Holy Spirit
This doctrine affirms that Jesus was the Son or offspring of God, and that
God had the power and authority to cause his birth. As his position was
to be the savior of men, it was necessary that he be a man, not an immortal,
preexistent being. Like all flesh-born sons of men, he developed embryonically
in his mother's womb for approximately nine months: "And Joseph also
went up from Galilee ... with Mary his espoused wife, being great with child.
And so it was, that, while they were there, the days were accomplished that
she should be delivered. And she brought forth her firstborn son ..."
(Luke 2:4-7).
The covenant of circumcision was an adjunct of the Mosaic law, and all Jewish
males were required to be circumcised on the eighth day. Childbirth defiled
the Jewish mother, and certain purification rites were necessary for cleansing:
"If a woman have conceived seed, and born a man child: then she shall
be unclean seven days; according to the days of the separation for her infirmity
shall she be unclean. And in the eighth day the flesh of his foreskin shall
be circumcised. And she shall then continue in the blood of her purifying
three and thirty days; she shall touch no hallowed thing, nor come into
the sanctuary, until the days of her purifying be fulfilled. But if she
bear a maid child, then she shall be unclean two weeks, as in her separation:
and she shall continue in the blood of her purifying threescore and six
days" (Lev. 12:2-6). Condemnation passed upon all men as a result of
Edenic disobedience. All descendants of Adam came under this sentence of
death merely by being born, and Jesus was no exception (Rom. 5:12, 18; cp.
Heb. 2:14, 16-18).
"And when eight days were accomplished for the circumcision of the
child, his name was called Jesus, which was so named of the angel before
he was conceived in the womb. And when the days of her purification according
to the law of Moses were accomplished, they brought him to Jerusalem, to
present him to the Lord" (Luke 2:21-22). In the act of circumcision
there was an acknowledgment of the existence of sin and of the necessity
of blood to remove sin. If we believe the testimony of the Bible, we will
acknowledge a Jesus who was born after the usual course of man's development
from conception to birth. However, as our proposition above is stated, he
was begotten of the virgin Mary by the power of the Holy Spirit. God was
his Father, in that God caused the power of the Holy Spirit to overshadow
Mary and to work germinatively upon her. As a virgin, she had known no man.
No mortal man had anything to do with the birth of Christ, not Joseph nor
anyone else. When God announced at Jesus' baptism that "this is my
beloved Son, in whom I am well pleased" (Matt. 3:17), He was expressing
a relationship that substantively existed, a Son of His begettal.
It is evident that the wording of the proposition under review is a direct
disputation of the trinitarian theory. Instead of Christendom's "God
the Father, God the Son, and God the Holy Ghost," the Bible teaches
quite clearly that there is one God, who is the Father and supreme head
of all things, that His Son is of His begettal and brought forth in the
birth process from a mortal woman, and that the Holy Spirit is God's special
power which He utilizes for selective purposes. The testimony of Luke 1:
3 5 should satisfy the inquiring mind with its reference to the specific
assignments of the Father, Son, and Holy Spirit: "And the angel answered
and said unto her, The Holy Spirit shall come upon thee, and the power of
the Highest shall overshadow thee: therefore also that holy thing which
shall be born of thee shall be called the Son of God."
We have heard that the doctrine of the Trinity was accepted into "the
church" by a single vote. Perhaps some reader could write in to verify
the source of this statement, if it is correct. It really makes no difference
how it came to be accepted into "the church" as long as we recognize
that it is a fallacious piece of sophistry. It is a well documented fact
that the doctrine of the Trinity officially became sanctioned by "Christianity"
at the Council of Nicaea in 325 A.D. The work of establishing the church's
position on the matter was prominently influenced by Athanasius (298-373),
bishop of Alexandria. We hear the terms, Nicene Creed and Athanasian Creed,
referred to in the theological discussions about the Trinity. The following
quote from the Encyclopedia Britannica provides some information
which should be interesting to those seeking the background of the trinitarian
theory:
"Arius had received his theological education in the school of the
presbyter Lucian of Antioch, a learned man, and distinguished especially
as a biblical scholar. The latter was a follower of Paul of Samosata, bishop
of Antioch, who had been excommunicated in 269, but his theology differed
from that of his master in a fundamental point. Paul, starting with the
conviction that the One God cannot appear substantially on earth, and, consequently,
that he cannot have become man in Jesus Christ, had taught that God had
filled the man Jesus with his logos or power. Lucian, on the other hand,
persisted in holding that the logos became man in Christ. But since he shared
the above-mentioned belief of his master nothing remained for him but to
see in the logos a second essence, created by God before the world, which
came down to earth and took upon himself a human body. In this body the
logos filled the place of the intellectual or spiritual principle. Lucian's
Christ, then, was not 'perfect man,' for that which constituted in him the
personal element was a divine essence;. nor was he 'perfect God,' ****for
the divine essence was a created being. It is this idea which Arius took
up and interpreted. His doctrinal position is explained in his letters to
his patron Eusebius, bishop of the imperial city of Nicomedia, and to Alexander
of Alexandria, and in the fragments of the poem in which he set forth his
dogmas. From these writings it can even nowadays be seen clearly that the
principal object which he had in view was firmly to establish the unity
and simplicity of the eternal God. However far the Son may surpass other
created beings, he remains himself a created being, to whom the Father before
all time gave an existence formed ,out of nothing.' Arius was quite unconscious
that his own monotheism was hardly to be distinguished from that of the
pagan philosophers, and that this Christ was a demigod."
It (the controversy) reached even the ears of Constantine. Now sole emperor,
he saw in the one Catholic Church the best means of counteracting the movement
in his vast empire towards disintegration; and he at once realized how dangerous
dogmatic strife might prove to its unity. Constantine had no understanding
of the questions at issue; and no course was left but to summon a general
or ecumenical council, which was convened in Nicaea in 325. After various
turns in the controversy, it was finally decided, against Arius, that the
Son was "of the same substance" with the Father, and all thought
of his being created or even subordinate had to be excluded. Constantine
accepted the decision of the council and resolved to uphold it.
Also, see Nicaea, Council of "The Council of Nicaea is
an event of the highest importance in the history of Christianity. Its convocation
by Constantine and its course illustrate the radical revolution
which the position of this religion, within the confines of the Roman empire,
had undergone in consequence of the Edict of Milan. From his accession Constantine
had shown himself the friend of the Christians; and, when his victory over
Licinius (A.D. 3 2 3) gave him undisputed possession of the crown, he adhered
to this religious policy distinguishing and fortifying the Christian cause
by gratuities and grants of privilege. This propitiatory attitude originated
in the fact that he recognized Christianity - which had successfully braved
so many persecutions - as the most vital and vigorous of religions, and
as the power of the future ... The deliberations on the Arian question passed
through several distinct stages before the final condemnation of Arius and
his doctrines was reached ... Accordingly Constantine proposed that the
Caesarean creed should be modified by the insertion of the Alexandrian passwords
(including the decisive term, 'identical in nature'), as if for the purpose
of more accurate definition, and by the deletion of certain portions. That
he appreciated the import of these alterations, or realized that this revision
was virtually the proclamation of a new doctrine, is scarcely probable.
The creed thus evolved by an artificial unity was no ratification of peace:
in fact, it 4 paved the way for a struggle which convulsed the whole empire."
Also, see Athanasius the Great: "Alexander had inherited
from his predecessor the, disorders caused by the schismatic ordinations
of Meletius, bishop of Lycopolis, who had intruded himself during the persecution
into the diocese. To these in 319 were added the dissension caused by the
teaching of Arius. Arius taught that the Son of God was a created being.
There was a time when he did not exist. He was, indeed, the first born of
all creatures and surpassed them in dignity. Through him all other creatures
were made. But he could only be called divine in a limited and secondary
sense. Arius also denied the full humanity of Christ. He held that this
semi-divine being only took a body through which he acted. The Council of
Nicaea were forced to employ some technical term, not in Scripture, to rule
out such teaching which contradicted the sense of Scripture. Thus they added
to the Creed the test word homoousios, that is, 'of one essence' or 'substance.'
There is nothing materialistic about it in Greek. All that it asserts is
that whatever the essential being of God is, namely divinity, the Father
and the Son possess it equally. They also affirmed that the Son was 'of
the ousia or essential being, of the Father,' that is, he was
not created out of nothing; he existed eternally ... The term ousia
was ambiguous. It might mean either a particular being or a common
essence. The same ambiguity belonged to the term hypostasis, though
it inclined to the meaning of a particular entity. In the anathemas appended
to the Creed of Nicaea ousia and hypostasis were
employed as synonyms. This increased the suspicion of the East that the
term homes really excluded any real distinctions in the Godhead.
On the other hand, writers who used the term hypostasis in
the sense of 'Person,' to mark the distinctions in the Godhead seemed to
those who used it in the other sense to be speaking of three gods. Athanasius
saw that the dispute was at bottom a matter of the use of terms. In the
important Tomus ad Antiochenos which records the decisions
of the council, both uses of hypostasis were recognized and
explained, and the term home was cleared of ambiguity. The way was prepared
for the acceptance of the later terminology, 'One ousia, "Three Hypostases,'
corresponding to the Western, 'One Substance,' 'Three Persons.' "
No Pre-existence
Even though the Arians were closer to the truth on the nature of Christ
than were the Trinitarians or Catholics, they did not understand it correctly.
The Scriptures teach that Jesus Christ is the distinct. Son of God, begotten
of the virgin Mary by the power of the Holy Spirit. For 4,000 years following
the creation of Adam and Eve there was no Jesus; he did not exist for he
had not yet been born. We see in Galatians 4:4 that "when the fullness
of time was come, God sent forth his Son, made of a woman, made under the
law." The inferior status of Jesus due to his birth circumstances plainly
shows that he was not an equal of the self-existent Deity. Jesus said, in
John 14:28, "My Father is greater than I " John 3:35 testifies,
"The Father loveth the Son, and hath given all things into his hand."
And Jesus prayed in John 17:1-3, "Glorify thy Son, that thy Son also
may glorify thee.... And this is life eternal, that they might know thee
the only true God, and Jesus Christ whom thou hast sent."
It is significant that redemption was promised in Genesis 3:15 through the
woman's seed, not man and woman's. The use of the term, seed, indicates
that the subject did not at that time exist. Seed implies predecessor, and
it is clear that God preceded His Son just as every father preceded his
son.
"Now the birth of Jesus Christ was on this wise: When as his mother
Mary was espoused to Joseph, before they came together, she was found with
child of the Holy Spirit" (Matt. 1:18). J S.
Thank you for visiting and reading literature from www.learnbible.net.
If you would like to get together with someone in your area for bible study, please let us know...