Thought Question: The End of Protestantism

Catholic Protestantism

Interesting article in First Things by Peter J. Leithart.

Protestantism has had a good run. It remade Europe and made America. It inspired global missions, soup kitchens, church plants, and colleges in the four corners of the earth. But the world and the Church have changed, and Protestantism isn’t what the Church, including Protestants themselves, needs today. It’s time to turn the protest against Protestantism and to envision a new way of being heirs of the Reformation, a new way that happens to conform to the original Catholic vision of the Reformers.

Read the whole article and then come back here share you reactions.

Profile photo of Jay Guin

About Jay F Guin

My name is Jay Guin, and I’m a retired elder. I wrote The Holy Spirit and Revolutionary Grace about 18 years ago. I’ve spoken at the Pepperdine, Lipscomb, ACU, Harding, and Tulsa lectureships and at ElderLink. My wife’s name is Denise, and I have four sons, Chris, Jonathan, Tyler, and Philip. I have two grandchildren. And I practice law.
This entry was posted in Uncategorized. Bookmark the permalink.

75 Responses to Thought Question: The End of Protestantism

  1. George Guild says:

    “Some Protestants don’t view Roman Catholics as Christians, and won’t acknowledge the Roman Catholic Church as a true church.” Peter J. Leithart. I fall squarely in this camp. Jesus is the ONLY mediator between God and man (1 Tim. 2:5). Not Mary, the Pope or the Roman church. And yes, I do consider myself Protestant, American Restoration Movement stream (Church of Christ).

    “A Reformational Catholic knows that the Roman Catholicism has changed and is changing.” Peter J. Leithart. In what way? Are Roman Catholics giving up the “Vicar of Christ”? Are they giving up their prayers to the saints (veneration of the saints)? Will Mary be removed from the un-holy trinity (Mary replace the Holy Ghost a long time ago)? If they start to make these changes then they become more Protestant than Catholic (Catholic, not in the universal sense, but Roman).

    It may be good from time to time to ask what certain groups have in common, but at other time it is not so healthy. A Reformational Catholic might also want to see what it has in common with pagan religious groups as well. Because a lot of the ritual in the Roman religion is taken from some of these groups.

  2. I admit, “Reformational Catholic”, is a new label to me. But looking beyond that to the substance of his comments.

    He makes many very good points. But also inherently generalizes too far. I suspect most Protestants, outside elitist theologians, even think about the meaning or roots of the label.

    Peter makes the strongest case for dismissing labels and returning to the standard expressed in the NT. If someone proclaims Jesus as his Lord and Savior, I will accept him as my brother in Christ.

    I’m tired of the condemnation over rules which God has discarded as a path to salvation.

    I think Luther was on the right track when he talked about being faithful to the revelation of God as you understand it. We can talk about such revelation, but I choose to decline to condemn because your understanding of it is different than mine.

    Peter’s comments demonstrate, again, the ineffectiveness of labels to expand understanding

  3. Scott Stegall says:

    You really need to read this book…. http://www.amazon.com/Church-Refugees-Sociologists-reveal-people/dp/1470725924 Church Refugees

  4. Profile photo of Jay Guin Jay Guin says:

    Scott,

    I’ve added to my Amazon wishlist. I’d already read reviews from different authors. Sounds like a trend church leaders need to be well aware of. From an Amazon review —

    Note, the Dones are not the free-riders. They are the folks who showed up every week and gave regularly, and they are not leaving because of the apparent dominance of conservative theology or well-publicized sex scandals. Rather, Packard summarizes, “the story of the dechurched is a story of modern religious organizations and institutions stifling people’s ability to engage with each other and their community.”

    So why are the Dones leaving? Packard argues,

    • The Dones say they left because of the judgmental posture of church people individually and collectively which assaulted the communal experience they longed for.

    • The Dones say they left because they are tired of trying to serve Jesus through the bureaucratic methods of church organizations which stifled progress and often gave little attention to what they cared for most. Many wished to build the Kingdom but were only offered opportunities to build someone’s church empire.

    • The Dones say they left because they want to answer questions about God through dialogue and struggle, not though prepackaged lectures and the predetermined positions of their community.

    • And the Dones say they left because their church only understood “morality” in terms of substance abuse and sexual activity with a common disregard to systemic issues of equality, poverty and unjust economics.

    That’s a challenging list — both because it contains a lot of truth and because it’s not easy to solve these problems. For example, “systemic issues of equality, poverty and unjust economics” are real but but the solutions offered by both political parties fall far short of actually solving these problems. Asking a preacher with a Bible degree to lead us to solving these problems is like asking me to do brain surgery. They just don’t have the training or knowledge base — or very few do. And most of the pop evangelical literature on these topics is worse than useless.

    So thanks for the recommendation. Could be a fruitful study.

  5. I found the article refreshing, but – as David Himes noted – over generalized. What I’m hoping to see in my lifetime (which, since I’m now 75, soon to be 76, will need to be soon) is a similar approach to reconciliation within the RM. That would be major progress for “US” in the Stone-Campbell Movement, aka the Restoration Movement.

  6. Adam Legler says:

    The refugees book would be an interesting series. It very much applies to where I am finding myself

  7. Dwight says:

    I the early day there was neither Catholic or protestant. There was only Christian, saint, brother, child of God, etc or those who belonged to Christ and not a system or sect. Maybe we should try that?

  8. David says:

    As Jerry pointed out, becoming Reformational Catholics would be a very long step for the CofC. We have not even become Reformational Restorationist yet.

  9. John Grant says:

    Lets not forget we were taught for many years that the Church of Christ was around continuously since it was mentioned in the new Testament. It was simply underground all that time from then til now as the denominations arose.
    How many times that we are the only true church was preached and debated with the denominations. Most of the Church of Christ members that live, or have lived, are now dead and if they could come back all of them would attest to that belief.
    Wonder who started that belief? It was not the Campbells or Stone or Zwingly, so who? Had to be someone of great importance and position to fool so many.
    If it is not true, we were taught, believed, and taught ourselves a big Church of Christ lie.
    Surely God will punish someone for starting that lie. Wonder what else is a lie?

  10. I think it is a good thing to acknowledge and learn from the wealth of Christian history prior to the Reformation. The recently deceased Phyllis Tickle was of the opinion that Christendom undergoes a big change every 500 years. The Reformation commenced about 500 years ago, The previous period began with the Great Schism between Catholic and Orthodox. And roughly 500 years before that was the time of Pope Gregory the Great whose actions and import she describes in her books. Of course this all began 500 years earlier with the life of Christ. These periods are accompanied by changes in society. In Pope Gregory’s time it was the fall of the Roman Empire and changes in travel and communication and other structural changes of life then. Of course, the Reformation was made possible by the invention of the printing press. When the form of communication changes, the nature of human consciousness changes. We live in such a time. We are transitioning from a print culture to digital culture. With this change comes new ways of looking at the Bible and religion. It is good and necessary that we mine riches from the past. And thanks to easy digital access to their writings and contemporary students of them we can. But we should also look to the future and the changes that are in process and coming. Our younger cohorts are not convinced by the word formulas lifted from a seemingly common sense reading of the Bible. I say seemingly because one cannot read the Bible text by oneself. One’s community is sitting on the shoulder guiding the effort. It is an exciting time to see all of this unfolding and the new styles of Christianity being born.

  11. laymond says:

    ” Protestantism isn’t what the Church, including Protestants themselves, needs today. ”

    Couldn’t be more wrong if trying to be wrong. Protestantism is needed more today than any time in history that I recall, I am a “Protestant” I protest change in the Church that does not conform with the words written in the bible. I protest change just for the sake of change. I protest change to fit the word of man, instead of the word of God. I protest man telling me the bible really does not mean what it says. I protest most loudly when I am told that God is not a God but three Gods.
    I may be restricted as to where I can protest, but I will forever protest a lie.

    As Jesus told me, if you follow me, you will be hated, because they first hated me. The so named coC may change, but I never will I will believe in God and I will try my best to follow Jesus Christ.
    and yes I will continue to protest those who teach false doctrine.

  12. Dwight says:

    Why do we protest change for the sake of change? I know many who do, but why. There is nothing remotely wrong with change for the sake of change. We change what we see on TV because we do not want to watch the same thing over and over again. We can change our “worship service” from two prayers to four prayers and six songs to eight song and from one hour to one hour and ten minutes without impunity or sin. The problem is that we want to have a reason to change that is based on scripture, but we can’t even argue from scriptures why our “worship service” is the way it is as it was created by man in this form.
    So Laymond I guess you protest against John 1 that argues that Jesus was the word and the word was with God and the Word was God and the Word, who is Jesus came down in the flesh. Even those that believe Jesus is God, as that he has the nature of God in essence, as you and I have the nature of man in essence, still worship God and follow Jesus.

  13. David says:

    Dwight

    I have always been opposed to change just for the sake of change. I have just switched from Windows 7 to Windows 10 and the change irritates me a little. I was told it would make my computer more secure so I finally broke down and did it. But you are absolutely right. We do need change just for the sake of change even if we don’t see any immediate improvement from the change. Something to think about in planning the worship assembly.

  14. Dwight says:

    I hear you, but it was worth it for the Start function back again.
    The problem is that we use the “change for the sake of change” as a reason not to change, when we do not apply this to things in our life as if it is a scriptural concept. Change is often good if it is a good change and sometimes we won’t know until we change, after all we can always change back. We often argue that others should change, but not us, because we have seemingly reached perfection. Often change results in seeing and doing things differently and getting a different perspective.

  15. laymond says:

    Dwight says:
    “So Laymond I guess you protest against John 1 that argues that Jesus was the word and the word was with God and the Word was God and the Word, who is Jesus came down in the flesh. Even those that believe Jesus is God, as that he has the nature of God in essence, as you and I have the nature of man in essence, still worship God and follow Jesus.’

    Let’s look at Dwight’s statement that “Jesus” was the word, in the beginning with God. Where did this come from, it absolutely is not from John 1. As a matter of fact it contradicts what is said in John 1..

    Jhn 1:1 In the beginning was the Word, and the Word was with God, and the Word was God.
    Where does this say Jesus was the word.?

    And Dwight said, “and the Word, who is Jesus came down in the flesh.”
    and this is what John said.
    Jhn 1:14 And the Word was made flesh, and dwelt among us, (and we beheld his glory, the glory as of the only begotten of the Father,) full of grace and truth.

    Dwight, what does it mean when parentheses used in scripture?

    The newer versions do the same thing as Dwight is doing, they change scripture to fit their belief.
    Jhn 1:18 No man hath seen God at any time; the only begotten Son, which is in the bosom of the Father, he hath declared him.
    NIV
    No one has ever seen God, but the one and only Son, who is himself God and is in closest relationship with the Father, has made him known.

    ( who is himself God,) I just don’t believe the KJ translators would have left out such important information if it were contained within the original manuscript.

    Dwight, I don’t protest any thing in John 1, I do protest against changing scripture to fit your needs.
    And believe me you are not the only one to do this.

  16. Dwight says:

    John 1 “In the beginning was the Word, and the Word was with God, and the Word was God. He was in the beginning with God. All things were made through Him, and without Him nothing was made that was made. In Him was life, and the life was the light of men. And the light shines in the darkness, and the darkness did not comprehend it. There was a man sent from God, whose name was John. This man came for a witness, to bear witness of the Light, that all through him might believe. He was not that Light, but was sent to bear witness of that Light. That was the true Light which gives light to every man coming into the world. He was in the world, and the world was made through Him, and the world did not know Him. He came to His own, and His own did not receive Him. But as many as received Him, to them He gave the right to become children of God, to those who believe in His name: who were born, not of blood, nor of the will of the flesh, nor of the will of man, but of God. And the Word became flesh and dwelt among us, and we beheld His glory, the glory as of the only begotten of the Father, full of grace and truth. John bore witness of Him and cried out, saying, “This was He of whom I said, ‘He who comes after me is preferred before me, for He was before me.’” And of His fullness we have all received, and grace for grace. For the law was given through Moses, but grace and truth came through Jesus Christ. No one has seen God at any time. The only begotten Son, who is in the bosom of the Father, He has declared Him.”

    The whole context is of Jesus. If the Word and the Light is not Jesus, then then who became flesh and then who was with God…in the beginning with God, who was also God?
    This creates a schizophrenic God who is beside Himself if the Word and the Light is not Jesus.
    The progression of thought is “someone” as the Word who was with God and was God, “someone” is the Light, then this Jesus Word came down as flesh…who is Jesus. Even John states that Jesus was before him, even though technically Jesus was born after him.

  17. laymond says:

    Dwight, none of the above described Jesus the man, until he had reached the age of 30 years and was baptized and the spirit of God rested upon him.

    The first verse tells us from what Jesus will grow. and the next 4 verses tells us what he will become.
    This is the planning stage.
    Isa 11:1 And there shall come forth a rod out of the stem of Jesse, and a Branch shall grow out of his roots:
    Isa 11:2 And the spirit of the LORD shall rest upon him, the spirit of wisdom and understanding, the spirit of counsel and might, the spirit of knowledge and of the fear of the LORD;
    Isa 11:3 And shall make him of quick understanding in the fear of the LORD: and he shall not judge after the sight of his eyes, neither reprove after the hearing of his ears:
    Isa 11:4 But with righteousness shall he judge the poor, and reprove with equity for the meek of the earth: and he shall smite the earth with the rod of his mouth, and with the breath of his lips shall he slay the wicked.
    Isa 11:5 And righteousness shall be the girdle of his loins, and faithfulness the girdle of his reins.

    this is the propheted stage.
    Isa 42:1 Behold my servant, whom I uphold; mine elect, in whom my soul delighteth; I have put my spirit upon him: he shall bring forth judgment to the Gentiles.

    this is the stage of completion of the plan.
    Mat 12:18 Behold my servant, whom I have chosen; my beloved, in whom my soul is well pleased: I will put my spirit upon him, and he shall shew judgment to the Gentiles.

    The scene of Jesus’ baptism confirms all of the above.

  18. Dwight says:

    So you are saying that God “came in the flesh” as Jesus, not when he was born, but 30 years later? Then why was he worshipped as Lord and savior by the wise men? And strange that John taught about Jesus and the Light, even before Jesus was baptized. Even while in the Temple Jesus stated that “He came to do His Father’s business.” It appears that others and Jesus knew who He was. The strange thing is that Jesus went about 15 years past the point of accountability to be God. John taught about Jesus “This was He of whom I said, ‘He who comes after me is preferred before me, for He was before me.’”, even before Jesus was baptized. There is no indication that Jesus became God or more God at His baptism, even though it is possible he lacked the power of the HS. Jesus Christ means “anointed savior” from His birth.

  19. laymond says:

    ” So you are saying that God “came in the flesh” as Jesus, not when he was born, but 30 years later?”
    Dwight in no way am I saying that. The bible tells us that Jesus came from the womb of woman, in the flesh.The word of God came to us through the flesh of Jesus. The writer of Hebrews said earlier God also spoke to man through (human beings) the flesh of the prophets, then he spoke to man through the (flesh) man, Jesus. (his son)
    As I recall John never said “God became flesh” John said “the word of God became flesh” which in my opinion means the word of God was spoken by man. Flesh represents man .

  20. Dwight says:

    If that is all there is to that, then Jesus wasn’t really any different than the other prophets that came before who brought the word of God! This is really where this leads. How is Jesus the Son of God then, since he has no lineage with God?
    Jesus is the Word and the Light. The Word was with God and was God. You are separating scriptures from each other trying to make the Word and the Light and Jesus different entities.
    This doesn’t say, “the Word of God became Flesh”, but rather “And the Word became flesh.” the same “In the beginning was the Word, and the Word was with God, and the Word was God. He was in the beginning with God.”
    Denying that He is God denies that He is the Son of God, because you are destroying his lineage.

  21. Profile photo of Jay Guin Jay Guin says:

    Dwight and David,

    I find Windows 10 runs high-memory programs such as Logos much more efficiently than Windows 8.1. And I do like getting the Start button back. Also the networking seems better.

  22. laymond says:

    “If that is all there is to that, then Jesus wasn’t really any different than the other prophets that came before who brought the word of God! This is really where this leads. How is Jesus the Son of God then, since he has no lineage with God?”
    Dwight, you try so hard to place words in my mouth that just weren’t ever there. I have never once said Jesus was no different than other people, I don’t know of another person in history that was the offspring of a woman/human as mother, and a Spirit as Father. I do remember a place in the bible which said “the son’s of God laid with the daughters of men, and their offspring was mighty men of old” I reached the conclusion that the son’s of God here was referring to angels. Just my opinion. I an not taking any glory from Jesus at all, I just don’t give the Son the Father’s glory.
    Because God said he would not give his glory to anyone.

  23. Dwight says:

    Amen! Yes, Sometimes a change with some inconvenience (a day of loading) brings good things. I wasn’t a fan of 8.1, so this is much better.

  24. Dwight says:

    Laymond, Even Jesus, the Son of God, gave God, His Father, the glory, but he accepted glory as the Son of God. I don’t know of anyone who ever argued that they would not give God the glory first and foremost, even as Jesus did. But still you argue directly against the lineage of God while arguing that Jesus is the Son of God. That cannot be. Either he is the Son of God or not, he cannot be one in name only. All of our faith is built on Jesus as the Son of God or God in the Flesh.

  25. Larry Cheek says:

    Dwight,
    Laymond does not believe that Jesus has any power over his person, he refuses to give glory to Jesus for being the mediator between God and himself. Jesus was only a man and was used by God to the deliver the plan, once the plan was delivered he is out of the picture. I believe that he would consider it just as great a sin to call Jesus his Lord and Savior as it would be to worship Satan. In other words if you worship Jesus you will be condemned.
    He may disagree but that is the context of his arguments. If he does disagree he will still refuse to call Jesus his Lord and Savior.

  26. laymond says:

    Dwight, When was it that God declared Jesus to be his son? at birth, at baptism, or when he raised him from death? You tell me.

    Psa 2:6 Yet have I set my king upon my holy hill of Zion.
    Psa 2:7 I will declare the decree: the LORD hath said unto me, Thou art my Son; this day have I begotten thee.

    Act 13:32 And we declare unto you glad tidings, how that the promise which was made unto the fathers,
    Act 13:33 God hath fulfilled the same unto us their children, in that he hath raised up Jesus again; as it is also written in the second psalm, Thou art my Son, this day have I begotten thee.

    Mat 3:16 And Jesus, when he was baptized, went up straightway out of the water: and, lo, the heavens were opened unto him, and he saw the Spirit of God descending like a dove, and lighting upon him:
    Mat 3:17 And lo a voice from heaven, saying, This is my beloved Son, in whom I am well pleased.

  27. laymond says:

    Larry seems to think the magical path to the promised land is to call Jesus “lord and Savior ”

    I had two older brothers in this life, both are gone now, but I looked up to both to the extent that I truly believe if it had come to it, I would have laid down my life for either. They both served in the Korean war both risked their life for me.
    I see Jesus in this way except more so, Jesus not only risk his life for me but he gave it.
    I believe Jesus looks at me as both my older brothers did. as a friend, a very close friend. and I try to be that friend as best I can.

    Jhn 15:14 Ye are my friends, if ye do whatsoever I command you.
    Jhn 15:15 Henceforth I call you not servants; for the servant knoweth not what his lord doeth: but I have called you friends; for all things that I have heard of my Father I have made known unto you.

    Heb 2:11 For both he that sanctifieth and they who are sanctified are all of one: for which cause he is not ashamed to call them brethren,

  28. Dwight says:

    Laymond, When Jesus says, “I am the way, the truth and the life. No one can come to the Father but through me.”, then he is arguing that He is the way to God. He therefore is Savior. He is King as it was His Kingdom. To throw out these concepts is to throw out the whole of the Bible.
    Your argument from Psalms and Acts, then is that Jesus was begotten upon His resurrection, but then again for some reason you point to Matt.3 where God recognized His son and gave His approval. If my son (or daughter) does something good that everyone can see, I will (or should) give them my approval and declare them as mine, but this doesn’t mean that they were born that day and it doesn’t change who they are in nature.

  29. laymond says:

    Thou art my Son, this day have I begotten thee.
    This is my beloved Son, in whom I am well pleased.
    Dwight do you see the difference in these two statements.? If so what difference do you see.?

  30. Dwight says:

    Laymond, you are the one who produced these so you should be the ones to explain them. Your Psalms and Acts argues that God begot Jesus on the day He was raised by God from the grave. Is this correct? And if not, then why?

  31. laymond says:

    Dwight, I believe that is right, Jesus became God’s “begotten son” when he was raised to go to the Father’s side.

    This is my beloved Son, in whom I am well pleased. this speaks of one of many sons who has obeyed God in baptism. And yes I believe God/your Father was pleased when you were raised from the waters of baptism.

    Yes there is a difference in the statements I referenced. At baptism Jesus was one of many sons of which the Father was pleased.
    At Jesus’ resurrection, Jesus became the “only begotten son” not one of many, the only one, to be born from death into everlasting life.
    When you die and are raised, you will deny Jesus that title, He won’t be the “only begotten son” any longer. There will be Dwight along side Jesus.

  32. Dwight says:

    I am sorry, but God never said this about anyone else but Jesus or had the Holy Spirit land on their head at that time. No one else was called the Son of God or referred to themselves as the Son of God. Only one with the lineage of God, could be called the Son of God. The Jewish leaders crucified Jesus because he sought to make himself equal with God, which they was blasphemy. He also forgave sin, which only god could do. We are only sons by inheritance, not by lineage.
    There are so many things wrong with your argument that go against scripture and what they understood of Jesus and what was said of Jesus. Jesus was the Son of God and King of the kingdom before he was crucified and raised.

  33. Monty says:

    Before Abraham was, “I am. ” Jesus knew what he meant. The Jews certainly got the drift of what he was saying. They said, you’re only 30 years old or whatever it was. Jesus said he(not the Word from God’s mouth-the Jews would have certainly not have been upset about that, they would have agreed with Jesus) but that “he” was before Abraham as, I Am, the one who has always been. The Jews understood it exactly as Jesus meant for them to get it. To bad some today don’t get it.

  34. Dwight says:

    Heb.1 “God, who at various times and in various ways spoke in time past to the fathers by the prophets, 2 has in these last days spoken to us by His Son, whom He has appointed heir of all things, through whom also He made the worlds; 3 who being the brightness of His glory and the express image of His person, and upholding all things by the word of His power, when He had by Himself[a] purged our[b] sins, sat down at the right hand of the Majesty on high, 4 having become so much better than the angels, as He has by inheritance obtained a more excellent name than they.5 For to which of the angels did He ever say:
    “You are My Son, Today I have begotten You”?[c]
    And again:
    “I will be to Him a Father,And He shall be to Me a Son”?[d]
    6 But when He again brings the firstborn into the world, He says:
    “Let all the angels of God worship Him.”[e]
    7 And of the angels He says:
    “Who makes His angels spirits , And His ministers a flame of fire.”[f]
    8 But to the Son He says:
    “Your throne, O God, is forever and ever;
    A scepter of righteousness is the scepter of Your kingdom.
    9 You have loved righteousness and hated lawlessness;
    Therefore God, Your God, has anointed You
    With the oil of gladness more than Your companions.”[g]
    10 And:
    “You, Lord, in the beginning laid the foundation of the earth,
    And the heavens are the work of Your hands.
    11 They will perish, but You remain; And they will all grow old like a garment;
    12 Like a cloak You will fold them up,
    And they will be changed. But You are the same, And Your years will not fail.”[h]
    13 But to which of the angels has He ever said: “Sit at My right hand,
    Till I make Your enemies Your footstool”?[i]
    14 Are they not all ministering spirits sent forth to minister for those who will inherit salvation?
    In this God says to His Son , “Your throne, O God is forever and ever.”

  35. Dwight says:

    Heb.1 ironically points to many things. It almost appears as though Jesus is a created being and it might be, but even so Jesus would be created with the qualities and nature of God.
    But then as we move into who Jesus is as the Son of God…the angels can worship and are to worship Him, so where does that leave us, since Jesus is God…also able to worship Jesus.
    Jesus is King of a Kingdom…Jesus is righteous…Jesus laid the foundation of the world, which jives with John 1 in which God created through the Word. Jesus, only Jesus is worthy as God and Son and righteous to sit at God’s side.

  36. laymond says:

    Does Heb.1 agree with 1Co 15

    1Co 15:20 But now is Christ risen from the dead, and become the firstfruits of them that slept.
    1Co 15:21 For since by man came death, by man came also the resurrection of the dead.
    1Co 15:22 For as in Adam all die, even so in Christ shall all be made alive.
    1Co 15:23 But every man in his own order: Christ the firstfruits; afterward they that are Christ’s at his coming.
    1Co 15:24 Then cometh the end, when he shall have delivered up the kingdom to God, even the Father; when he shall have put down all rule and all authority and power.
    1Co 15:25 For he must reign, till he hath put all enemies under his feet.
    1Co 15:26 The last enemy that shall be destroyed is death.
    1Co 15:28 And when all things shall be subdued unto him, then shall the Son also himself be subject unto him that put all things under him, that God may be all in all.

    can you tell me who wrote Hebrews, and please explain to me why these two statements do not conflict.
    Heb 1:4 Being made so much better than the angels, as he hath by inheritance obtained a more excellent name than they.
    Heb 2:9 But we see Jesus, who was made a little lower than the angels for the suffering of death, crowned with glory and honour; that he by the grace of God should taste death for every man.

    Was Jesus made “much better than angels” or “a little lower, than angels” ?

    Heb 1:8 But unto the Son he saith, Thy throne, O God, is for ever and ever: a sceptre of righteousness is the sceptre of thy kingdom.
    Psa 45:6 Thy throne, O God, is for ever and ever: the sceptre of thy kingdom is a right sceptre.
    it is evident that Heb 1:8 came from Psa 45:6 read all of Psa 45 and tell me this describes Jesus of Nazeruth

  37. Larry Cheek says:

    Laymond,
    I continued to prod you on purpose and the truth is now being exposed. By not submitting to Jesus as Lord and Savior you cannot be a member (an adopted son) of God who is added to the Kingdom which is the Bride of Christ. If Christ is not your Lord he cannot forgive you of your sins. It also appears to me as you attempt to show your perceived relationship with Jesus, that you are placing yourself on the same level as Jesus.
    First you deny that Jesus has any higher status than you have after baptism. Any human that has been baptized is equal with Jesus in God’s sight.
    “This is my beloved Son, in whom I am well pleased. this speaks of one of many sons who has obeyed God in baptism. And yes I believe God/your Father was pleased when you were raised from the waters of baptism.”

    “Yes there is a difference in the statements I referenced. At baptism Jesus was one of many sons of which the Father was pleased.” Is your name also on this list. If yours is not can you name any who are on the list, I am not asking for all whom you could believe is there, just a sample.

    Then you extend the concept further.
    “At Jesus’ resurrection, Jesus became the “only begotten son” not one of many, the only one, to be born from death into everlasting life.
    When you die and are raised, you will deny Jesus that title, He won’t be the “only begotten son” any longer. There will be Dwight along side Jesus.”
    Stating that when Christ followers are raised from the dead (we) will be equal to Jesus. This concept totally denies Jesus sacrifice on the cross and his power to forgive our sins.
    It really sets a new standard, live a life like Jesus (follow his example), as I think about much of your communications this is exactly what you have been promoting, and when God raises you from the dead, you will be a child of God just like Jesus is now.

  38. laymond says:

    Larry, I wish you would watch Edward Fudge’s sermon on.
    Story of Jesus Told From 4 Psalms
    if you want the address I will post it if it is alright with Jay.

  39. Larry Cheek says:

    Laymond,
    What portion of Psalms is that, chapter 4 does not fit.

  40. Larry Cheek says:

    Laymond,
    I have found the sermon which you are referencing. I will read it, and give you a report.

  41. Larry Cheek says:

    Laymond,
    Since you have called upon Edward Fudge to support your concepts, and directed me to his sermon on the four Psalms, it identity is, “A SERMON BUILT ON FOUR PSALMS”, it is found under the Title, “HEBREWS: ANCIENT ENCOURAGEMENT FOR BELIEVERS TODAY”. I have read the complete sermon and do not see your concepts being verified. But, while there on Edward Fudge’s site I also found a companion book of his, I believe that it was noted that it was no longer in print. It can be read on his site, Title is, “Our Man In Heaven”. I suggest that you read carefully the; Exposition of the Text – Chapter One, in that you will find that Edward portrays Jesus in a very different manner than you have, I believe it could even be said that he refutes your portrayal of Jesus. Go read it and give us a report.

  42. Dwight says:

    Laymond,
    You wrote “Does Heb.1 agree with 1Co 15:20-28 “But now is Christ risen from the dead, and become the firstfruits of them that slept. For since by man came death, by man came also the resurrection of the dead. For as in Adam all die, even so in Christ shall all be made alive. But every man in his own order: Christ the first fruits; afterward they that are Christ’s at his coming. Then cometh the end, when he shall have delivered up the kingdom to God, even the Father; when he shall have put down all rule and all authority and power. For he must reign, till he hath put all enemies under his feet. The last enemy that shall be destroyed is death. And when all things shall be subdued unto him, then shall the Son also himself be subject unto him that put all things under him, that God may be all in all.”
    I Cor.15 really has nothing to do with Heb.1 as far as I can tell, with the exception that Jesus was raised from the dead (resurrected). I Cor.15 explains that Jesus is indeed resurrected and thus alive. Jesus relayed life to man, whereas Adam relayed death. Christ is the first fruit, but this has nothing to do with Jesus not as God, but rather Jesus as the first to be in heaven within the context of His Kingdom. HE took up the throne.

    Heb 1:4 “Being made so much better than the angels, as he hath by inheritance obtained a more excellent name than they.” Heb 2:9 “But we see Jesus, who was made a little lower than the angels for the suffering of death, crowned with glory and honour; that he by the grace of God should taste death for every man.”
    Jesus was better than the angels because of his “inheritance”, which the angels did not have. It Is right there in the verse. Why wouldn’t God extoll His son, who is of like nature.
    Jesus was “made lower than the angels” in that he took on flesh. And yet the angels worshipped Jesus. Jesus had the power to heal and forgive, even in the form of flesh.

    Heb 1:8 “But unto the Son he saith, Thy throne, O God, is for ever and ever: a sceptre of righteousness is the sceptre of thy kingdom.
    Psa 45:6 “Thy throne, O God, is for ever and ever: the sceptre of thy kingdom is a right sceptre.
    it is evident that Heb 1:8 came from Psa 45:6 read all of Psa 45 and tell me this describes Jesus of Nazareth.
    The fact that in the OT David is writing about God, doesn’t make this less applicable to Jesus since Jesus clearly took over the throne from God the Father to rule. This is the point of Heb.1, Jesus is the ruler of the Kingdom that God the Father gave Him. But God doesn’t place Jesus as something or of a nature that isn’t of His nature.

  43. laymond says:

    http://edwardfudge.com/2014/05/story-of-jesus-told-from-4-psalms/

    I was referring to a sermon preached by Fudge at cross plains Tennessee .
    I was simply saying since you have condemned me to hell, for referring to Jesus as, my brother
    a man/human being sitting at the right hand of God, I suppose you will also send brother Fudge with me for saying the same thing.
    But at the least we know you who will be safe in the bosom of Abraham , and hopefully you will have mercy on us and give a little water for our parched tongue. Since you are the one who condemned us to the fires, the least you can do is give us a little water.
    You said; “I continued to prod you on purpose and the truth is now being exposed.”
    You said you tricked me into telling you the truth of my wicked ways so I would think you might be feeling a little sad for bringing this to God’s attention.
    Since you have convicted me of the unforgivable sin, you might want to trick Jesus into telling you
    why he was not ashamed to call me brother.

  44. laymond says:

    Dwight, 1Co 15 says; “. Then cometh the end, when he shall have delivered up the kingdom to God, even the Father; ”

    Heb 1:8 “But unto the Son he saith, Thy throne, O God, is for ever and ever: a sceptre of righteousness is the sceptre of thy kingdom.

    Paul said the kingdom will be delivered to God, The Hebrews writer says nope the kingdom belongs to Jesus and always will.

    Or what am I missing here?
    Psa 45:6 “Thy throne, O God, is for ever and ever: the sceptre of thy kingdom is a right sceptre.

    when who ever ,tries to apply psalms 45 to Jesus, it just does not fit the New Testament Jesus. the pretty boy image, the woman chaser nature, seems to me to fit one of Jesus ancestors better. King David.

  45. Dwight says:

    Laymond, The problem is that you give scriptures, but don’t offer how they fit in your theological scenario.
    Heb.1 is referring to the Son, why, because it says so. Then there is the fact that all through the gospels and beyond Jesus is referred to as the King and it being His kingdom.
    I Cor.15 says, “then cometh the end” and I don’t believe we have reached the end and when we do the Kingdom that Jesus is over will be returned to the one who gave it to Him, God the Father.
    The problem with time in the scriptures is that they are subjective no to us, but to God and His sense of time. Jesus kingdom will last forever, until it is given over. Many times the translators translate “eon” or in Grk.-“aion” sections of time into “indefinite” since they don’t know the end of the period.
    There are many times in the scriptures where the concept of forever are related on human terms and mean until the end of humanity or some long period of time and other times it means forever
    Since scripture doesn’t contradict itself, the “for ever and ever” in Heb.1 will be until Jesus delivers the Kingdom back to God.
    John 8:35 “And a slave does not abide in the house forever, but a son abides forever.”
    There seems to be a contradiction here as a son will not literally abide in the house forever any more than the slave does, after all they will both die eventually, but the son will definitely be there for a much longer time as opposed to the limited nature of the slave. The Son has permanent rights to the house, while the slave doesn’t have any.

  46. laymond says:

    Dwight how come “for ever and ever” means eternity in Hebrew, and Means for just a while in Greek. and it is speaking of the same thing.

    1Ch 29:10 Wherefore David blessed the LORD before all the congregation: and David said, Blessed be thou, LORD God of Israel our father, for ever and ever.
    1Ch 29:11 Thine, O LORD, is the greatness, and the power, and the glory, and the victory, and the majesty: for all that is in the heaven and in the earth is thine; thine is the kingdom, O LORD, and thou art exalted as head above all.

    I must have missed where God “gave” his kingdom to Jesus. If he did Jesus must not have heard him, because Jesus always referred to “The Kingdom” as “The kingdom of God”
    Jhn 17:4 I have glorified thee on the earth: I have finished the work which thou gavest me to do

    Why would Jesus need to retain kingship over God’s kingdom if he had finished the Job given him by the king.

    I don’t know that Jesus ever referred to himself as king. He did say he was a friend and a brother.

  47. Monty says:

    From the website Got Questions: “Paul makes the point that Jesus was humbled in His earthly ministry and that His humiliation will result in glorification. In Philippians 2:5–11, Paul discusses the extent to which Jesus went to atone for sinners; Jesus’ perfect obedience is the reason that “God has highly exalted him and bestowed on him the name that is above every name, so that at the name of Jesus every knee should bow, in heaven and on earth and under the earth, and every tongue confess that Jesus Christ is Lord, to the glory of God the Father” (vv. 9–11). The Suffering Servant becomes the King of kings (see Isaiah 53:10–12).

    Finally, in the book of Revelation we see the Kingship of Jesus made manifest. In chapter 5, the Lamb (Jesus) is the only one in all creation found worthy to open the scroll containing the judgments of God (vv. 2–5). In chapter 11, we hear voices in heaven proclaiming that the kingdom of the world has become the kingdom of Christ and that He will reign forever and ever (v. 15). In chapter 12, we read that the authority of Christ is what causes Satan to be thrown down to earth (vv. 9–10). In Revelation 17:12–14, the Lamb conquers all those arrayed against Him, and John stresses that He conquers because He is King of kings and Lord of lords. Finally, in chapter 19, we read of Jesus’ triumphant coming to strike the nations and tread the winepress of the wrath of God, having the authority to do so because He is King of kings and Lord of lords (vv. 11–16).

    Fundamentally, the idea of Jesus being King of kings and Lord of lords means that there is no higher authority. His reign over all things is absolute and inviolable. God raised Him from the dead and placed Him over all things, “far above all rule and authority and power and dominion, and above every name that is named, not only in this age but also in the one to come. And he put all things under his feet and gave him as head over all things to the church, which is his body, the fullness of him who fills all in all” (Ephesians 1:21–23).”

    “And he shall reign forever and ever” Does that mean forever Laymond?

  48. Dwight says:

    Laymond, Do you consider anything before you argue a point. If your argument is true, then in John 8:35 “And a slave does not abide in the house forever, but a son abides forever.” the son lives forever and the slave dies. Again this was to show that the word “aieon” reflects a time period that is undetermined, but not necessarily open ended and eternal.
    The word for “forever” is a different word in Hebrew than Greek. But even so the Hebrew “owlam” is defined as “long duration”
    Gen.13:15 “for all the land which you see I give to you and your descendants forever (owlam).”
    So what happened when Israel and Judah was conquered by Assyria and Babaloyn and the Meds-Persians? Well they took the land and it wasn’t Israels any longer. In fact the land mass that Israel had at one time they don’t have today.
    Jesus will then in this context reign forever until Jesus comes again and then returns the Kingdom back to God, the Father.

  49. Monty says:

    Jesus returns the kingdom to the Father doesn’t mean he(Jesus) stops reigning. It is a symbolic gesture as a means of accomplishing his purpose. Everything God determined will be fulfilled in Christ Jesus. Jesus(the Son) and God (the Father) both, will reign forever and ever.

  50. Dwight says:

    Monty, that is a possibility, even though I never have thought that the return would be symbolic, but in a sense when Jesus reigns, it is the Father reigning, because Jesus does the will of His Father. The ownership might be different, but the management style is the same, except now the manager (Jesus) has a personal connection with those of the flesh (us) since He lived as one us. The NT does bring in a new style, even though it is part of the Father’s will.

  51. laymond says:

    Dwight, and Monty, If you are interested, on December 2, 2015 at 10:13 am, I left the address to a sermon preached by Brother Fudge, in my opinion he does a great job on this very subject. just backtrack and click on the address if you are interested in hearing a good sermon.

  52. Monty says:

    Just remember they are the One God(head) instead of a two or a three individual gods. It really is hard to even talk about these things because of our individual identities that are separate from anyone else. It’s that earthly human individual concept that Laymond can’t get past IMHO. The heavenly concept is of 3 distinct persons who comprise a One. We simply don’t have any examples of it in our world. The closest we can come perhaps is our family unit which is composed of a father, mother and children who all share very similar DNA. They are the Smiths or the Jones. The Smiths and Jones are comprised of individual persons but they have so much in common they are a family of Smiths. The husband and wife God unites into a one. Let not man separate. Two distinct persons but referred to as one flesh. It’s a mystery(Godhead) for sure but the complexity of the mystery and whether we comprehend it properly doesn’t affect the reality of it.

  53. Dwight says:

    Laymond, I don’t like fudge and I am not a follower of Fudge either.
    We do have examples of more than one being one. In the case of man and wife, they “cleave and become one”. This is a physical connection and a spiritual connection (or should be). The two shall be as one…meaning that they are no longer individuals in purpose, even though they are individual people. The Israelites were one people when they came before God in covenant, even though made up of many people. We are of mankind, even though individuals. There are plenty of instances of the concept of “one” encapsulating the concept that many can be of one nature or purpose or thought. God is one, but God can be God, Jesus and the HS in thought and purpose and nature.

  54. Larry Cheek says:

    Laymond,
    I see that you found a video of Mr. Fudge’s sermon. Since you are so convinced that we should listen to it and that by doing so we will be convinced that his sermon will confirm your beliefs, can we assume that you have listened to the sermon?

  55. Profile photo of Jay Guin Jay Guin says:

    Guys,

    I’ve decided to stay out the debate on whether Jesus is God the Son. But I thought I’d pitch this in —

    (Ps. 2:7-8 ESV) 7 I will tell of the decree: The LORD said to me, “You are my Son; today I have begotten you. 8 Ask of me, and I will make the nations your heritage, and the ends of the earth your possession.

    References to the begottenness of Jesus are references to Psalm 2 — a Messianic psalm — but it’s also a coronation psalm. This is speaking of the moment that God’s anointed one becomes king.

    All Israelites were “sons of God.”

    (Deut. 14:1-2 ESV) “You are the sons of the LORD your God. You shall not cut yourselves or make any baldness on your foreheads for the dead. 2 For you are a people holy to the LORD your God, and the LORD has chosen you to be a people for his treasured possession, out of all the peoples who are on the face of the earth.

    So Jesus was God’s son when he was born a Jew. And literally conceived by God. But the scriptures also speak of the king of Israel as God’s son —

    2Sa 7:14 I will be to him a father, and he shall be to me a son. When he commits iniquity, I will discipline him with the rod of men, with the stripes of the sons of men,

    Psa 89:27 And I will make him the firstborn, the highest of the kings of the earth. [Speaking of David.]

    Cooler still is John 3:5 which speaks of all Christians being “born again,” but the Greek for “born” is the same word as “begotten” — the translation depending on whether you’re speaking of the mother or father. So Christians are to be begotten again — just as Jesus was begotten by God the Spirit in Mary and just as David was begotten again as king of Israel. And just as Gentiles are reborn/rebegotten as part of Israel — God’s chosen people.

    Lot’s of strands come together.

    When God announced that Jesus is his only-begotten Son, well, he’s announcing that he’s the Messiah and King. But the word was used idiomatically of a ‘special” or “unique” son. In Hebrews, Isaac is called Abraham’s “only begotten” even though Abraham fathered other sons. The reference is to his place in Abraham’s covenant destiny — something like that.

    It’s bad Greek and bad exegesis to imagine that Jesus had no pre-existence because he was begotten. David existed before he was begotten of God. So did we.

    Rather, it’s a METAPHOR for a culture in which there was no adoption for becoming a son to a father in a new way or in a new relationship.

  56. laymond says:

    Larry asked; “can we assume that you have listened to the sermon?”
    You don’t need to assume anything, yes I have listened to the sermon all three parts, twice.
    I have yet to hear a sermon where no questions arose, but I think Brother Fudge did a good job
    on explaining the book of Hebrews.
    This was just the morning session, I haven’t been able to find the entirety of his teachings on the book.

  57. Larry Cheek says:

    Laymond,
    I listened to the video and did not catch these concepts which I found in the complete text of the sermon which is also on the website. These statements found in the text teach a different view of Jesus than you are portraying.
    Mr. Fudge in his sermon referred to Jesus in this context twice.
    “Son-of-God-made-man”
    As we look at this statement “Son-of-God” precedes “made-man”, Jesus was the Son of God prior to his birth into humanity.
    All quoted text is from the sermon.
    “Jesus now intercedes as high priest for his people”.
    “In becoming a man, the Son of God became for a little while lower than angels. As a man, Jesus destroyed death, disabled the devil, and became high priest for all his people.” Before becoming a man (the Son of God) Jesus was higher than the Angels. Your statements state that he did not become Son of God until he was baptized.
    “Upon trusting in Christ, the believer enters the “rest” of a finished salvation.”
    “He now says a word about what Jesus is doing at God’s right hand. Jesus is his people’s high priest, representing their interests before the Father.”
    “To accomplish his sacrifice, the Son of God became a man in the person of Jesus Christ”
    “Like a double picture frame, Psalm 110 brings together the two messianic images of Jesus Christ as king and priest (Psalm 110:1, 4; see Zechariah 6:11-13). The first image shows him enthroned at God’s right hand in heaven (Psalm 110:1). The second image presents Jesus as our priest after the order of Melchizedek (Psalm 110:4).”
    “Jesus continues forever and holds his priesthood permanently. For this reason Jesus is able to save “forever” (translating a Greek phrase that also means “completely”). Those who draw near to God through him are undergirded by the perfect obedience, vicarious death, mighty resurrection and glorious ascension of Jesus their high priest. Until he returns to bring salvation, Jesus represents his people in heaven, wearing their names over his heart (Exodus 28:29-30).”
    “Jesus perfected that sacrifice in his living, performed it in his dying, and presented it in his resurrection and exaltation — all on behalf of his people and as their representative. Jesus’ presence in heaven now guarantees his people full access to God through him. Jesus is just the high priest we need: “holy, innocent, undefiled, separated from sinners, exalted above the heavens” (Hebrews 7:26).”

    The book that contains many statements that refute your teachings, is found on Edward Fudge’s website.
    It can be read on his site, Title is, “OUR MAN IN HEAVEN”. I suggest that you read carefully the; Exposition of the Text – Chapter One, in that you will find that Edward portrays Jesus in a very different manner than you have.
    Notice these two paragraphs from chapter one.
    “By Christ God made the worlds. Christ is both originator and heir of all things. He is the Alpha and the Omega, the author and finisher of creation as well as of faith. The worlds might mean the created universe (as in 11:3; see also John 1:3; Colossians 1:16-17) or literally “the ages” of time in which God’s saving purpose is worked out. Both interpretations state what Scripture elsewhere affirms.”
    “Because Christ is creator, He is also eternal – though all His creation will change with age and finally pass away. He laid the foundation of the earth and His hands arranged the heavens, but when these things perish (see 12:26-28) His years will not fail (7:24-25). When they are all changed He will remain the same (13:8).”

  58. Monty says:

    The idea that that which was born of Mary was just a regular human being that would one day become a servant of God is to refuse to listen to scripture. Jesus was holy at birth, Elizabeth speaking by inspiration said,”But why am I so favored that the mother of my Lord should come to me?” She was speaking in present tense. Was not a virgin chosen so that God could pour his deity into an earthen vessel? There was no need of any special birthing plans if Jesus was just a human who would one day become more special after God endowed him with certain gifts. Why all the fuss over him then? If just a regular babe in the womb?The angels rejoiced that night for a Savior had been born, not because he would one day become a savior. But because the babe was deity in human flesh. He wasn’t worshipped by the Magi in his potentiality, but because of who he was at that time. The Son of God born in human flesh. A great mystery.

  59. Dwight says:

    We just did a bible class that leads us through the birth of Christ…some of the points made about Jesus as a baby and before he was baptized or crucified:
    Matt.1:20 “Joseph, son of David, do not be afraid to take to you Mary your wife, for that which is conceived in her is of the Holy Spirit.” not of man (Joseph), but of the HS.
    Matt.1:23 “23 “Behold, the virgin shall be with child, and bear a Son, and they shall call His name Immanuel,” which is translated, “God with us.”
    Matt.2:11 “And when they had come into the house, they saw the young Child with Mary His mother, and fell down and worshiped Him.”
    Luke 2:11 “For there is born to you this day in the city of David a Savior, who is Christ the Lord.”
    John 1:1-18 “In the beginning was the Word, and the Word was with God, and the Word was God. He was in the beginning with God…And the Word became flesh and dwelt among us, and we beheld His glory, the glory as of the only begotten of the Father, full of grace and truth.”
    John 1:29 ““Behold! The Lamb of God who takes away the sin of the world! This is He of whom I said, ‘After me comes a Man who is preferred before me, for He was before me.’” even though John was technically born before Jesus.
    The proof of the scriptures is to hard to ignore.
    Jesus was God in the flesh even from birth.

  60. laymond says:

    Monty, the word HOPE comes to mind. as I have written before, I have no answer for the mystery of Jesus birth, just my understanding of the story. The story does not start with the birth of Jesus It starts in Isaiah. God said he would send his servant, whether he was speaking of his servant in heaver or on earth we do not know. He said the root of this servant would be in David’ s earthly father, not David’s heavenly Father. Which leads me to think this servant began his service here on earth , Just as all men must do, my reasoning tells me Jesus became both man and God at his baptism when the spirit of God landed upon him and dwelt there . The spirit remained with Jesus until the cross where Jesus cried “my God, why have you left me alone” . Jesus was raised from death as a man and ascended to heaven as a raised from the dead, man who took his place at the right hand of God, No Christian I know has said Jesus was not a special creation of God with a special mission in mind. In my opinion no true believer in Jesus can say Jesus has not completed the mission given him. I believe Jesus himself said Father, I have finished the job given me “it’s over”. not my earthly mission is over, my base of operations have been changed from earth to heaven. I believe the book says Jesus sat down while his Father finished the job.
    I believe while on earth Jesus said, he didn’t know when the job would be finished, I believe he said only God knows. Jesus death, and his admission that he did not know when this world would end, leads me to doubt what some say, ” Jesus is God.” God cannot die, and God is all knowing.

    Monty furnish scripture that tells me where I am wrong.

  61. John F says:

    Regarding John 3:5 the Greek is anwthen, which can also mean above. I like to think that Jesus uses the double meaning: You must be born from above… . . Just a quick thought. From above is a great theme in John’s gospel

  62. Larry Cheek says:

    Laymond,
    I would guess that now that I have shown you that Edward Fudge does not subscribe to your concepts, you will not read what he has written. It really would be an exercise of proving your beliefs even if only for yourself if you could put his examples to the test. Of course if you succeeded maybe it would become your duty as a Christian to contact Edward to explain to him the proper concept of Jesus. Isn’t that what all discussions are supposed to create, a better understanding of The Word of God?

  63. Dwight says:

    These are the majors that hold the concept that Jesus is not deity according to Wiki.
    “Christadelphians, Christian Scientists, The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints, Dawn Bible Students, Friends General Conference, Iglesia ni Cristo, Jehovah’s Witnesses, Living Church of God, Oneness Pentecostals, Members Church of God International, Unitarian Universalist Christians, The Way International, The Church of God International and the United Church of God.
    Also Judaism and Islam.
    The Jews during Christ time condemned Jesus to death because of his claims of Godhood or deity. Only God could forgive sin…which Jesus did. Only Jesus was called the Son of God and accepted that term. He talked of His Kingdom that was in heaven, which would make Him a King of that Kingdom. The Jews considered this blasphemy.

  64. laymond says:

    .
    Hebrews 2:9 — “…by God’s grace He might taste death for everyone.”

    Does this mean that Jesus paid the price of sin for all men , did Jesus die for us, or in our place.

    Heb 2:10 For it became him, for whom are all things, and by whom are all things, in bringing many sons unto glory, to make the captain of their salvation perfect through sufferings.
    (Dwight, does this mean, that Jesus was deity , just not perfect deity. )

    OK back to my original question. “did Jesus die for us, or in our place.”

    Rom 5:6 For when we were yet without strength, in due time Christ died for the ungodly.
    for = hyper = 1.in behalf of, for the sake of
    you can die on behalf of someone, without taking their own responsibility away.
    The word “for” in Hebrews 2:9 is the same as in Rom 5:6 .It does not mean “in place of”. Solders die every day “on our behalf” but that does not say we will never die.

    Rom 6:23 For the wages of sin is death; but the gift of God is eternal life through Jesus Christ our Lord.
    So as Heb 2:10 says, did God see it as necessary for Jesus to suffer and die, so we could have a perfect leader, In that he would experience life and death as we must, or so we wouldn’t have to pay for our own sins. If “a god” could have led men back to The Father, Jehovah would have done it himself.
    Gen 3:3 But of the fruit of the tree which is in the midst of the garden, God hath said, Ye shall not eat of it, neither shall ye touch it, lest ye die.
    Those who argue they are saved by faith alone use Hebrews 2:9 as proof that Jesus had already paid the price for their sins, He took their place. therefore they are absolved of their responsibilities , nothing required of them.

    As the bible says; Rev 20:13 And the sea gave up the dead which were in it; and death and hell delivered up the dead which were in them: and they were judged every man according to their works.

    When we say we will not be judged by our works, we are contradicting the written word.

    The sin ye do by two and two
    ye must pay for one by one.
    Rudyard Kipling (1865-1936)

  65. Monty says:

    Laymond,

    You simply can’t “become” God. You either are, or you’re not. Jesus was God(that’s the point of John 1:1) he is God, and will always be God. If there was ever a time when he wasn’t(God) then he never will “be” God. I hope this helps. God however can and did become man. A God/Man if you will with a dual nature. You and I have only one nature-man. God, in the person of Jesus, took on a dual nature. God humbled himself and took on human nature, and God became a servant. He was not a servant, not initially, but “became” one in order to come to earth and become the suffering servant(God’s Son). So yes, there is the sense in which the Messiah would become the servant of God(because of the condescending act of putting on humanity and fulfilling the desires of God(the father). That is how he(God the Son) could die(in the flesh). He allowed himself to die, “no man takes my life from me. But I lay it down. And if I lay it down I(he didn’t say the Father) but I have the power to take it back up again.” When man fell in the garden, God(the Godhead) already had a plan to redeem mankind. Man couldn’t rise to God’s level, so God came down to ours. Not some angelic created servant, but HE HIMSELF. It’s an incredible amazing story, an unthinkable one.

  66. Monty says:

    Laymond,

    Check out this song on youtube. It explains it all in song. https://youtu.be/iS0QOYsoGOU

  67. laymond says:

    Larry, I am not a follower of Mr. Fudge I was only referencing his description of Jesus as a man and brother, at the right hand of God.

    I try to follow Jesus Christ.

  68. laymond says:

    Monty said, “That is how he(God the Son) could die(in the flesh). He allowed himself to die, “no man takes my life from me. But I lay it down. And if I lay it down I(he didn’t say the Father) but I have the power to take it back up again”
    “Man couldn’t rise to God’s level, so God came down to ours. Not some angelic created servant, but HE HIMSELF. It’s an incredible amazing story, an unthinkable one.”

    Not only unthinkable, but just as impossible as God lying, What does dead mean to you, just lying very still with the ability to sit up if you so desire, or without life and unable to do anything.
    Jesus could have only been speaking of his faith in the Father’s promise that he would be raised in three days. As we see in scripture faith , true faith is a powerful thing. Jesus didn’t think he would be raised again, he knew he would. Why because God said he would. The only power Jesus had to raise himself from death, was the power of faith. The same power we have to know we too will be raised from death, faith in God’s word.

  69. Dwight says:

    Laymond, so if dead is dead, then man when he dies is dead and there is nothing left, no resurrection, after all dead is dead, no spirit to rise, no spirit to save…dead is dead.
    If the above is NOT true, then Jesus was God in the flesh and can die in the flesh and be resurrected in the flesh and in the spirit, even as we die in the flesh and some were resurrected in the flesh (lazerus for one) and we can rise in the spirit, even after our bodies have become worm food.
    Your concept puts limitations on what God can do. Jesus might have gone to the grave as the Son of God, but He lives again, well, as the Son of God, because he was born that way.
    If Jesus (God in the flesh) can be born in the flesh and there many scriptures that declare that, then he can die in the flesh as well and then he can live resurrected, either in the flesh/spirit or in the spirit as he had to become to go to God.
    There are many differences between us and Jesus from beginning to end. We aren’t born through the HS, worshipped as God and savior, able to heal, feed thousands with a few pieces of food and more importantly forgive sins, live sinless, die for all mankind, go to heaven and take a seat at the right hand of God. And more importantly be called the “Son of God.”

    Matthew 1616-18 “Simon Peter answered and said, “You are the Christ, the Son of the living God.”
    Jesus answered and said to him, “Blessed are you, Simon Bar-Jonah, for flesh and blood has not revealed this to you, but My Father who is in heaven. And I also say to you that you are Peter, and on this rock I will build My church, and the gates of Hades shall not prevail against it.”
    The whole of Christianity is built upon this concept that Jesus is the Son of the living God, has the lineage of God, from birth to death and beyond.

  70. Monty says:

    Laymond,

    I’m done. Merry Christmas!

  71. laymond says:

    Dwight, did you even read what I said, I did not dispute that the dead Jesus was raised, what I objected to was Jesus raised himself.

  72. laymond says:

    Merry Christmas, to you and yours Monty.

  73. Dwight says:

    Laymond, Monty was referring to John 10:17-18 “Therefore My Father loves Me, because I lay down My life that I may take it again. No one takes it from Me, but I lay it down of Myself. I have power to lay it down, and I have power to take it again. This command I have received from My Father.” which reflects that Jesus himself had the power over his death and life.
    We don’t have that kind of power or authority.
    True God did raise Jesus, but that is because Jesus allowed himself into a position of submission, much like our position of when we are baptized. We can put our self in and take our self out, but we give the power to another. Jesus was raised by His Father, even as Jesus allowed His own death.

    Actually I was referring to your statement, “God cannot die, and God is all knowing” to which you contend that Jesus could not die if He were God.
    God is an attribute of deity and not necessarily all powerful, all knowing, all etc., which was attributed to God the Father, but not necessarily Jesus in that Jesus was withheld from knowing when the end of time would be. But this doesn’t mean that Jesus wasn’t deity, but that Jesus wasn’t God the Father. I don’t know all of the same things that my father knew and I was his son.

  74. laymond says:

    Dwight said, “We don’t have that kind of power or authority.
    True God did raise Jesus, but that is because Jesus allowed himself into a position of submission”
    If this in indicating that Jesus, even when he was dead, retained the power to raise himself from the dead We need to be careful of what we say, just to win an argument. I hope you are not saying Jesus gave power to God.
    I don’t see anywhere in scripture where God sat down with his son, and discussed the plan of Isaiah – Chapter 11 , If you know something I don’t, I sure would appreciate knowing.

    Jhn 17:1 These words spake Jesus, and lifted up his eyes to heaven, and said, Father, the hour is come; glorify thy Son, that thy Son also may glorify thee:
    Jhn 17:2 As thou hast given him power over all flesh, that he should give eternal life to as many as thou hast given him.
    Jhn 17:3 And this is life eternal, that they might know thee the only true God, and Jesus Christ, whom thou hast sent. ( the only true God, and Jesus Christ, whom thou hast sent. ) I would think this let’s us know who had, authority and power.

    Rom 13:1 Let every soul be subject unto the higher powers. For there is no power but of God: the powers that be are ordained of God.

    1Co 15:28 And when all things shall be subdued unto him, then shall the Son also himself be subject unto him that put all things under him, that God may be all in all.

  75. Larry Cheek says:

    Laymond,
    Before I showed you that Mr. Fudge did not teach the doctrine that you do have credited to him, you left us with the impression that he did. Now that you understand that he does not, you now just state that, “I am not a follower of Mr. Fudge I was only referencing his description of Jesus as a man and brother, at the right hand of God.” Whopide do, you have taken the liberty to distort a man’s sermon into something that suites yourself, and don’t have the decency to at least admit that you misunderstood and misrepresented Mr. Fudge. I really did not expect you to be a follower of Mr. Fudge, because you had already explained that you are following Jesus, no one is to be a follower of a teacher or preacher. What you really meant is you don’t believe Mr. Fudge has presented truth, as he was explaining what Jesus had taught. In the same manner you won’t believe the messages that we quote from Jesus, God, The Apostles, and inspired Word of God.
    You have the opinion that God is alright with man picking some of his Word and pitting it against other portions of his Words to create your own message. God’s Word will never oppose itself, all interlocks with all other messages to portray the message that God expects us to get.
    God and Jesus did not tell different stories, if they did one must have been lying. God cannot lie, are we to believe that Jesus could?
    So why are we continually pressing you so hard? Because no man can come to God unless he comes with Jesus representing him, and if anyone refuses to submit to Jesus as his Lord and Savior, God will not accept as one of his children. It may be more easily understood if we looked at it in terms spelled out in scripture as, Jesus is the only begotten Son everyone else is an adopted son of God. God adopts his children through his adoption agency (Jesus), there is no other way.
    Joh 14:6 ESV Jesus said to him, “I am the way, and the truth, and the life. No one comes to the Father except through me.
    Joh 10:7-11 ESV So Jesus again said to them, “Truly, truly, I say to you, I am the door of the sheep. (8) All who came before me are thieves and robbers, but the sheep did not listen to them. (9) I am the door. If anyone enters by me, he will be saved and will go in and out and find pasture. (10) The thief comes only to steal and kill and destroy. I came that they may have life and have it abundantly. (11) I am the good shepherd. The good shepherd lays down his life for the sheep.
    Joh 10:24-30 ESV So the Jews gathered around him and said to him, “How long will you keep us in suspense? If you are the Christ, tell us plainly.” (25) Jesus answered them, “I told you, and you do not believe. The works that I do in my Father’s name bear witness about me, (26) but you do not believe because you are not among my sheep. (27) My sheep hear my voice, and I know them, and they follow me. (28) I give them eternal life, and they will never perish, and no one will snatch them out of my hand. (29) My Father, who has given them to me, is greater than all, and no one is able to snatch them out of the Father’s hand. (30) I and the Father are one.”

    If you refuse to believe the instructions of the adoption agency, you will never have a connection with the Father.
    Anyone who claims differently has been labeled as a thief and robber. According to what you have expressed on this blog, you have refused the adoption agency?

Leave a Reply