DOES JESUS CHRIST HAVE TWO WILLS OR ONE? (MONOTHELITISM OR DYOTHELITISM)

Whether God incarnate, Jesus Christ, has two wills or one is pertinent for a better understanding of our Lord Jesus and how His truly human and truly divine natures relate to one another. Before we proceed any further, let us define certain vital terms related to our context:

Person: “Person” is a center of self-consciousness, intentionality, and will.¹

Nature: That which makes humans distinctly human rather than animals.

Will: That which enables a deliberate action.

Monothelitism: Jesus has only one will – a divine will.

Dyothelitism: Jesus has two wills – a human and a divine.

Jesus Christ is a divine person (the Second Person of the Blessed Trinity) with both a divine nature and a human nature (the Hypostatic Union). Therefore, the question of wills in Jesus Christ is predicated on whether the will is a function of the “person” or the “nature.”

If the will is a function of the person, then Jesus Christ should have only one will, which is the divine will. If the will is a function of one’s nature, then Jesus Christ should have two wills—one divine and one human—because Jesus has two natures: one divine and one human.

Ligonier.org explains why the church voted in favor of the Dyothelitism view: “Monothelitism was declared a heresy and the reason it was declared a heresy is because the church concluded a will is in extent an essential part of a nature. If Jesus didn't have a human will as well as the divine will, it would be very difficult to see him as truly and fully human. We know he has a divine will because he was the Logos from all eternity and the second person in trinity that has a will. So, we know he has a divine will. If he has only one will it's just the divine will and the church, I think, rightly concluded that that would mean he did not have a fully human nature because he wouldn't have a fully human will.”²

On the contrary, Dr. William Lane Craig holds to Monothelitism. He states, “…the will is properly a faculty of a person rather than of a nature, I believe that there is but one will in Christ, despite his having two natures. For there is one person who is Christ, namely, the divine second person of the Trinity.”³

A common objection posed to the Monothelitism view is: if the will is a function of personhood, then would the Triune God—who is one God in the form of three persons—possess three distinct wills? If so, would these wills contradict each other? If they contradict each other, then they cease to be God, as this situation would limit God’s omniscience.

William Lane Craig states that God’s absolute perfection entails a perfect harmony between their wills, “Now if we affirm a robust conception of a person as a center of self-consciousness, intentionality, and will, as I think we should, it follows that the three Trinitarian persons have three wills. Of course, as the wills of three perfect persons, their wills always agree and are in harmony. Though there are three distinct acts of will, they all will the same thing.”⁴ [Emphasis Mine]

The church affirmed Dyothelitism by considering the following verses from the Bible:

Matthew 26:39 (NIV): “My Father, if it is possible, may this cup be taken from me. Yet not as I will, but as you will.”  

Luke 22:42 (NIV): “Father, if you are willing, take this cup from me; yet not my will, but yours be done.”

John 5:30 (NET): “I can do nothing on my own initiative. Just as I hear, I judge, and my judgment is just, because I do not seek my own will, but the will of the one who sent me.”

John 6:38 (NET): “For I have come down from heaven not to do my own will but the will of the one who sent me.”

Other passages assume human will in Christ (John 4:34, 5:19. 8:29, 14:31; Rom. 5:19; Phil. 2:8; Heb. 10:9.

To defend his position, Craig argues that if the will is associated with one’s nature then Christ should have two persons – a divine and a human.⁵

This is nothing more than an introduction to this complicated subject where, I believe, theology and philosophy should intersect to provide an adequate understanding of it.

Endnotes:

¹https://www.reasonablefaith.org/writings/question-answer/monothelitism-and-the-trinity

²https://www.ligonier.org/posts/does-jesus-have-one-or-two-wills

³https://www.reasonablefaith.org/writings/question-answer/monothelitism-and-the-trinity

⁴Ibid.

⁵https://www.reasonablefaith.org/media/other-videos/dyothelitism-vs-monothelitism & https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=VIr3o799aFA&ab_channel=ReasonableFaithOrg

Websites last accessed on 5^th August 2024. 

The Incarnation Of God: The Necessity (What Do We Celebrate At Christmas?)

            What do we really celebrate at Christmas?

            We celebrate the incarnation of God, says R.C Sproul:¹

R.C. Sproul reminds us that what we really celebrate at Christmas is the incarnation of God Himself.

What we celebrate at Christmas is not so much the birth of a baby, as important as that is, but what’s so significant about the birth of that particular baby is that in this birth we have the incarnation of God Himself. An incarnation means a coming in the flesh. We know how John begins His gospel, “In the beginning was the Word, and the Word was with God, and the Word was God.” So in that very complicated introductory statement, he distinguishes between the Word and God, and then in the next breath identifies the two, “The Word was with God, and the Word was God.” And then at the end of the prologue, he says, “And the Word became flesh and dwelt among us.” Now in this “infleshment,” if you will, of Christ appearing on this planet, it’s not that God suddenly changes through a metamorphosis into a man, so that the divine nature sort of passes out of existence or comes into a new form of fleshiness. No, the incarnation is not so much a subtraction as it is an addition, where the eternal second person of the Trinity takes upon Himself a human nature and joins His divine nature to that human nature for the purpose of redemption.

            William Lane Craig’s model for understanding the doctrine of Incarnation is valuable:²

I suggested a model for understanding the doctrine of the incarnation that allows us to affirm the deity and humanity of Christ in a logically coherent way that is also biblically faithful. This model involved, as you recall, three planks. First, that we affirm with the Council of Chalcedon that Christ has two complete natures – human and divine. Secondly, that the soul of the human nature – that body/soul composite that was Jesus of Nazareth – was the second person of the Trinity; it was the Logos. In uniting with the flesh, the Logos brought to the flesh everything needed to complete the human nature and to make it a genuine human being. And then, thirdly, I suggested that we think of the divine elements of Jesus’ consciousness as being largely subliminal during the time of his earthly sojourn. Although on occasion it may have surfaced in consciousness in different ways, for the most part we think of Jesus as having an ordinary human consciousness just like any other human being, and that enables us to explain his growth in wisdom and knowledge, his ignorance of certain facts, the ability of Jesus to feel genuine temptation, the anxieties and struggles that he experienced in life, his need for spiritual discipline and reliance upon his heavenly Father, his prayer life, the struggles in Gethsemane, and so forth. It gives us a realistic portrait of Jesus as we read about him in the Gospels, and yet he was also very much aware of who he was and the divine identity that he possessed at the same time.

            The Incarnation was necessary.

            Thomas Aquinas emphasizes that the Incarnation, a consequence to the human fall, was necessary for God to communicate HIMSELF in the highest manner to HIS creation, namely man.:³

Article 1. Whether it was fitting that God should become incarnate?

Objection 1. It would seem that it was not fitting for God to become incarnate. Since God from all eternity is the very essence of goodness, it was best for Him to be as He had been from all eternity. But from all eternity He had been without flesh. Therefore it was most fitting for Him not to be united to flesh. Therefore it was not fitting for God to become incarnate…

…On the contrary, It would seem most fitting that by visible things the invisible things of God should be made known; for to this end was the whole world made, as is clear from the word of the Apostle (Romans 1:20): "For the invisible things of God . . . are clearly seen, being understood by the things that are made." But, as Damascene says (De Fide Orth. iii, 1), by the mystery of Incarnation are made known at once the goodness, the wisdom, the justice, and the power or might of God—"His goodness, for He did not despise the weakness of His own handiwork; His justice, since, on man's defeat, He caused the tyrant to be overcome by none other than man, and yet He did not snatch men forcibly from death; His wisdom, for He found a suitable discharge for a most heavy debt; His power, or infinite might, for there is nothing greater than for God to become incarnate . . ."

…To each things, that is befitting which belongs to it by reason of its very nature; thus, to reason befits man, since this belongs to him because he is of a rational nature. But the very nature of God is goodness, as is clear from Dionysius (Div. Nom. i). Hence, what belongs to the essence of goodness befits God. But it belongs to the essence of goodness to communicate itself to others, as is plain from Dionysius (Div. Nom. iv). Hence it belongs to the essence of the highest good to communicate itself in the highest manner to the creature, and this is brought about chiefly by "His so joining created nature to Himself that one Person is made up of these three—the Word, a soul and flesh," as Augustine says (De Trin. xiii). Hence it is manifest that it was fitting that God should become incarnate.

Article 3. Whether, if man had not sinned, God would have become incarnate?

Objection 1. It would seem that if man had not sinned, God would still have become incarnate. For the cause remaining, the effect also remains. But as Augustine says (De Trin. xiii, 17): "Many other things are to be considered in Incarnation of Christ besides absolution from sin";…Therefore if man had not sinned, God would have become incarnate…

On the contrary, Augustine says (De Verb. Apost. viii, 2), expounding what is set down in Luke 19:10, "For the Son of Man is come to seek and to save that which was lost"; "Therefore, if man had not sinned, the Son of Man would not have come." And on 1 Timothy 1:15, "Christ Jesus came into this world to save sinners," a gloss says, "There was no cause of Christ's coming into the world, except to save sinners. Take away diseases, take away wounds, and there is no need of medicine."

…There are different opinions about this question. For some say that even if man had not sinned, the Son of Man would have become incarnate. Others assert the contrary, and seemingly our assent ought rather to be given to this opinion.

For such things as spring from God's will, and beyond the creature's due, can be made known to us only through being revealed in the Sacred Scripture, in which the Divine Will is made known to us. Hence, since everywhere in the Sacred Scripture the sin of the first man is assigned as the reason of Incarnation, it is more in accordance with this to say that the work of Incarnation was ordained by God as a remedy for sin; so that, had sin not existed, Incarnation would not have been. And yet the power of God is not limited to this; even had sin not existed, God could have become incarnate.

Endnotes:

¹https://www.ligonier.org/blog/incarnation-what-we-celebrate-christmas/

²https://www.reasonablefaith.org/podcasts/defenders-podcast-series-2/s2-doctrine-of-christ/doctrine-of-christ-part-8/

³http://www.newadvent.org/summa/4001.htm#article3

Websites last accessed on 30^th November 2019.

10 False Teachings That Could Ruin The Soul

            The Bible instructs every Christian to “Have nothing to do with the fruitless deeds of darkness, but rather expose them.” (Ephesians 5:11, NIV). False teaching,¹ most certainly, falls into the category of the ‘fruitless deeds of darkness.’ Hence, it is incumbent upon every sincere Christian to expose the false teachings prevalent in churches today.

                        Here’s a list of 10 most dangerous false teachings, which, I believe, have the potency to ruin our soul, if we believe and act according to them. In other words, we may not² be saved if we believe and live according to any of these teachings:

            1. No Truth: Postmodernists claim there is no truth. In other words, there are no objective standards of truth, rationality, and logic. They subscribe to alternate concepts such as relativism and subjectivism. Postmodern Christians subscribe to this notion as well. The Emerging/Emergent Church Movement is a derivative of postmodernism. The devious import of LGBTQ agenda into the church of Jesus Christ is an outcome of the postmodern thought process.

            2. No Bible: The detractors of Historic Christianity claim that the Bible is not the sole authority for a Christian. You can assimilate just about any religious book and trust just about any book that may seemingly offer you wisdom. This is another postmodern thought.

            The Roman Catholic Church buys into this thought as well. The Catechism of the Catholic Church believes that Muslims, just as Christians, would be saved even though they do not believe in Jesus or the Bible, so much so that the Catholic church considers the Quran and the Bible as coequals, “841 The Church's relationship with the Muslims. "The plan of salvation also includes those who acknowledge the Creator, in the first place amongst whom are the Muslims; these profess to hold the faith of Abraham, and together with us they adore the one, merciful God, mankind's judge on the last day."³³⁰”³       

    

            Another variant of this teaching is to believe that the Bible is corrupt (filled with error) and fallible. This erroneous belief led the founder of Mormonism, Joseph Smith, to start a new religion.

            3. No Jesus: Those who deny Jesus may believe in HIS divinity, but they also believe that the Lord Jesus Christ is not the only way to heaven. You can believe in just about any god and still go to heaven, they claim. Even if you do not believe in God, you can go to heaven. These are some of the various strands of Universalism. Quite a few Christians believe in Universalism or Inclusivism.

            4. No God, this Jesus: Jesus Christ is not God. Jesus Christ was a mere man during HIS life on earth. “Any teaching that redefines the person of Jesus Christ. Doctrine that denies the deity of Christ, the virgin birth, His sinless nature, His actual death, or His physical resurrection is false doctrine. A group’s errant Christology readily identifies it as a sect or cult that may claim to be Christian but is actually teaching false doctrine. Even many mainline denominations have begun the rapid slide into apostasy by declaring that they no longer hold to a literal interpretation of Scripture or the deity of Christ. First John 4:1–3 makes it clear that a denial of biblical Christology is “anti-Christ.” Jesus described false teachers within the church as “wolves in sheep’s clothing” (Matthew 7:15),” says Gotquestions.org.⁴

            Jehovah’s Witnesses believe that Jesus was a mere man when he was born on earth.

            5. No Resurrection: Jesus Christ did not [bodily] resurrect. Proponents of this erroneous teaching either subscribe to a notion that Christ did not resurrect or Christ’s resurrection was not a bodily resurrection. Jehovah’s Witnesses believe that Christ’s resurrection was spiritual and not a bodily resurrection.

            Another false teaching that can be accommodated into this category is that Jesus did not die, but lived on to marry and have children. This was the main theme of the bestseller book Da Vinci Code.

            6. No Trinity: “Mormons believe that the Trinity consists not of three persons in one God but rather of three distinct gods. According to Mormonism, there are potentially many thousands of gods besides these,” says an article in The Gospel Coalition.⁵ 

     

            Christian apologist J. Warner Wallace claims that those who deny the Trinity subscribe to some form of polytheism or they deny the deity of Jesus Christ.⁶

            Trinity is actively denied by the Jehovah’s Witnesses, Oneness Pentecostals, and Unification Church, etc.

            7. No Hell: Seventh Day Adventists believe that hell is not infinite torture. An article in Christianity.com states, “Adventists believe that hell is not an eternity of suffering and torture. They believe God is just but also merciful and it’s not in the nature of God to torture the unrighteous for eternity. Instead, sinners and unbelievers will ultimately die for eternity.

            Most Adventists believe some variant of annihilationism, which says that after final judgment, all unbelievers will be destroyed rather than suffering in hell. In this belief, the Old Testament and New Testament say that the final end for nonbelievers is total extinction. For example, in Romans, Paul describes hell as a final punishment, where the wicked die, perish or are destroyed.”⁷

            Annihilationism proposes a lack of hell. Those who subscribe to annihilationism believe that the wicked will die once and for all, thereby escaping the horror of hellfire. 

            8. No Grace, But Hyper-Grace: Hyper-grace teachers abuse God’s grace and teach people that our sins are forgiven once and for all (past, present, and future). Hence, there is no need to confess and repent our sins to God. “In short, hyper-grace teachers “pervert the grace of our God into a license for immorality” (Jude 1:4) and flirt with antinomianism…Hyper-grace preachers also claim the Holy Spirit will never convict Christians of their sin. Mature Christians should recognize this fallacy right away. Every disciple of Christ has felt the overwhelming conviction of the Holy Spirit when he or she has sinned. Jesus calls the Holy Spirit “the Spirit of Truth” (John 15:26). Truth, by its very definition, will not tolerate anything false. When the Spirit of Truth abides in a believing heart (1 Corinthians 6:19), He brings conviction about anything that is not truth,” says Gotquestions.org.⁸

            The Lord Jesus said, ““But if anyone causes one of these little ones who believe in me to sin, it would be better for him to have a huge millstone hung around his neck and to be drowned in the open sea…” (Matthew 18:6, NET). Hence, if hyper-grace teachers teach people that sinning is acceptable in the presence of God, they negate the Bible.

            9. No Grace, Yes Works: “Teaching that adds human religious works to Christ’s finished work on the cross as necessary ingredients for salvation. This teaching may pay lip service to salvation by faith alone but insists that a religious ritual (such as water baptism) is salvific. Some groups even legislate hairstyles, clothing options, and food consumption. Romans 11:6 warns against attempts to mix grace with works. Ephesians 2:8–9 says we are saved by the grace of God, through faith, and nothing we do can add to or take away from it. Galatians 1:6–9 pronounces a curse on anyone who changes the good news of salvation by grace,”⁹ says Gotquestions.org.

            The Bible does not say that Christians should not do good works. Doing good works, for a Christian, is a logical corollary/consequence to his/her salvation. This verse in the Bible sums it up well, “For it is by grace you have been saved, through faith—and this is not from yourselves, it is the gift of God—not by works, so that no one can boast. For we are God’s handiwork, created in Christ Jesus to do good works, which God prepared in advance for us to do.” (Ephesians 2: 8-10, NIV).

            Major religions emphasize doing good works (e.g. Judaism, Islam, Hinduism, etc.). Only Historic Christianity teaches that we are saved by grace through faith in the Lord Jesus Christ. Therefore, those who believe in Jesus Christ as their Lord and Savior will be saved, “…because if you confess with your mouth that Jesus is Lord and believe in your heart that God raised him from the dead, you will be saved. For with the heart one believes and thus has righteousness and with the mouth one confesses and thus has salvation.” (Romans 10:9-10, NET).

            10. No Historic Christianity, Yes New Age: If you wonder why many churches around the world adopt yoga, then you need to keep the New Age Movement in your radar. Yoga is a Hindu salvific exercise.

            In an earlier blog of mine entitled “Should Christians Practice Yoga,” I stated the false teachings prevalent in the churches:¹⁰

False Teaching In Christianity To Encourage Yoga

Some false teachers within Christianity who encourage yoga⁸ emphasize that the yogic codes such as Yamas and Niyamas can strengthen our appreciation towards the Christian teachings. They maintain that the yogic codes resonate with the Christian moral teachings.

“Ahimsa” (non-violence) is one of the “yamas” (restraints) of the yoga sutras of Patanjali (an Indian sage - considered to be an incarnation of the mythical serpent Anantha, as some believe). It seems Ahimsa resonates with the Christian moral teaching “love your neighbor as yourself.”

Similarly, one of the “Niyamas” (observances) of Patanjali’s yoga sutras is “Saucha” (Cleanliness or purity). Saucha teaches the necessity of purity or cleanliness in body and mind so to attain union with God. Apparently, Saucha resonates with the cleanliness teaching of Matthew 15: 16-20, and prayer, fasting and Scripture reading that focuses on the cleanliness of the heart.

Exposing The False Teaching

At the heart of the false teaching that yogic codes are essential to appreciate Christianity is the notion that all religions should converge, and truth (from various disparate worldviews) is always convergent.

This is Syncretism (fusion of divergent religions) in full force. Syncretism presupposes an inadequacy of any single religion to comprehend the divine on its own.

But every Christian should understand that God can be adequately understood from HIS Holy Word – The Bible. Christianity does not require Hinduism or one of its practices, namely yoga, to help understand and believe in God and HIS Son the Lord Jesus Christ.

What is the significance of these similarities between Patanjali's Yamas and Niyamas with the Bible? None! There is absolutely no significance! So what if two worldviews teach similarly? Does similarity in teaching syncretize religions? No!

Hinduism and Christianity are two fundamentally different religions (Godhead, salvation etc). Certain points of interconnect in the teachings of these religions will certainly not harmonize these religions. 

            By now you may wonder why Prosperity Gospel (Health & Wealth Gospel) does not feature in the list above.  I do not think that those lay Christians who subscribe to health & wealth gospel would go to hell because they do not deny any of the essential tenets of Historic Christianity. But their proponents aka the teachers, who twist the Bible to their own benefit, are most certainly treading on dangerous grounds, with respect to their own salvation (cf. Matthew 7: 21-23).

Endnotes:

¹Any teaching that contradicts the Bible is a false teaching or false teaching could be defined as that which denies the essential tenets of Historic Christianity. The essential tenets of Historic Christianity being God’s Triunity, Christ’s Birth, HIS sinlessness, death, burial, bodily resurrection & ascension, Christ’s 2nd coming, the final judgment, heaven & hell, the inspired and the infallible Bible.

²I do not want to sit in the judgment seat, which only belongs to Christ, so I say ‘may not.’ However, the chances of them not being saved are very high.

³http://www.vatican.va/archive/ccc_css/archive/catechism/p123a9p3.htm

⁴https://www.gotquestions.org/false-doctrine.html

⁵https://www.thegospelcoalition.org/blogs/justin-taylor/the-8-beliefs-you-should-know-about-mormons-when-they-knock-at-the-door/

⁶https://coldcasechristianity.com/writings/why-is-the-trinity-an-essential-christian-doctrine/

⁷https://www.christianity.com/church/denominations/10-things-everyone-should-know-about-seventh-day-adventists-and-their-beliefs.html

⁸https://www.gotquestions.org/hyper-grace.html

⁹https://www.gotquestions.org/false-doctrine.html 

¹⁰https://rajkumarrichard.blogspot.com/2014/02/should-christians-practice-yoga.html

Websites last accessed on 7^th June 2019.

How Could God Be Born? (Birth Of God)

            God, by definition, is uncaused. If God is uncaused, HE cannot be born. How then do we celebrate Christmas as the birth of God – the Lord Jesus Christ?

Was Christ God?

            If Christ is not God, then HIS birth need not be questioned. But every sincere Christian believes that Christ is God.

            How could we be certain of Christ’s deity (that Christ is God)?

            We may not find a verse in the Bible in which Christ acknowledges HIS deity with the simple words, ‘I am God.’ But the Jews of Jesus’ time were well aware that HE claimed to be God, “The Jewish leaders picked up rocks again to stone him to death. Jesus said to them, “I have shown you many good deeds from the Father. For which one of them are you going to stone me?” The Jewish leaders replied, “We are not going to stone you for a good deed but for blasphemy, because you, a man, are claiming to be God.”” (John 10: 31-33, NET, Emphasis Mine).  There’s another instance of the Jews disputing Christ’s claim to be God, “The Jewish leaders replied, “We have a law, and according to our law he ought to die, because he claimed to be the Son of God!”” (John 19:7, NET, Emphasis Mine)

            How did Christ claim to be God?

            Although Christ may not have said the simple words, "I am God," HE did make several claims of paramount significance that only God can make:

            (1) Jesus claimed that the angels were HIS angels (Matthew 13:41). Elsewhere angels are spoken of as ‘the angels of God’ (Luke 12: 8-9, 15:10).

            (2) In the same verse (Matthew 13:41), apart from claiming that angels are HIS angels, Jesus referred to the Kingdom as HIS Kingdom.

            (3) Although God alone can forgive sins, Jesus claimed to forgive sins, “And when Jesus saw their faith, he said to the paralytic, “My son, your sins are forgiven.”” (Mark 2:5, RSV; cf. Mark 2: 1-12).

            (4) Jesus spoke of judging the world (Matthew 25: 31-46).

            (5) Jesus claimed to be one with the Father, “…The Father and I are one.” (John 10:30). To know Christ is to know the Father, HE claimed (John 14: 7-9).

            (6) Jesus claimed to be pre-existent, “Jesus said to them, “I tell you the solemn truth, before Abraham came into existence, I am!”” (John 8:58, NET).

            (7) Jesus clearly acknowledged that HE is Christ, the Son of God, “And the high priest answered and said to Him, “I put You under oath by the living God: Tell us if You are the Christ, the Son of God!” Jesus said to him, “It is as you said. Nevertheless, I say to you, hereafter you will see the Son of Man sitting at the right hand of the Power, and coming on the clouds of heaven.” (Matthew 26:63b-64, NKJV, Emphasis Mine).

            (8) God alone has the power to kill and make alive (1 Samuel 2:6). However, Jesus claims this power to give and preserve life, “For just as the Father raises the dead and gives them life, so also the Son gives life to whomever he wishes.” (John 5:21, NET). Elsewhere HE said, “Jesus said to her, “I am the resurrection and the life; he who believes in me, though he die, yet shall he live…” (John 11:25, RSV).

            We could go on and on, but it is adequately clear from the Bible that Jesus is God.

How Is The Birth of God Justified?

            The New Testament identifies Jesus as both truly God and truly man, “In the beginning was the Word, and the Word was with God, and the Word was fully God. The Word was with God in the beginning. All things were created by him, and apart from him not one thing was created that has been created. In him was life, and the life was the light of mankind…Now the Word became flesh and took up residence among us. We saw his glory—the glory of the one and only, full of grace and truth, who came from the Father. John testified about him and shouted out, “This one was the one about whom I said, ‘He who comes after me is greater than I am, because he existed before me.’” For we have all received from his fullness one gracious gift after another. For the law was given through Moses, but grace and truth came about through Jesus Christ. No one has ever seen God. The only one, himself God, who is in closest fellowship with the Father, has made God known.” (John 1: 1-4, 14-18, NET).

            Jesus is described as God, who created all things. This very Jesus became man and entered earth. Thus says the Bible about the incarnation of God as a man. Therefore, Jesus Christ was truly God and truly man.

            Christ was not God, to begin with, then human being, then God again. The incarnate Lord Jesus Christ was God and man, simultaneously.

            Therefore the birth of God is not an aberration. It is perfectly logical. If Christ were truly man, then HE had to be born on earth as a human being.

Necessity Of Incarnation

            Finally, was it necessary of God to become man to save mankind?

            Yes!

            Why?

            Very minimally, sin separates God and man. Since every human being is a sinner, no man or woman can be with God forever. Therefore, the problem of sin (that separates man from God) had to be resolved.

            This problem can only be resolved by God’s initiative. Man cannot initiate any solution because he is limited/finite. Therefore, the infinite God initiated the salvation of man through the second person of the blessed Trinity, the Lord Jesus Christ.

            The consequence/wages of sin is death. Therefore, any program of salvation should include death.¹

            If Christ had to die, then HE had to be born.

Endnotes:

¹Only the sacrifice of the eternal God can save mankind of their sins – those who have died, those who are living and who will die, and those who are yet to be born.

                        

The Radical Christian Says No To Caste And Clan

The Lord Jesus Christ is the truth; these verses say so, “So the word of God became a human being and lived among us. We saw his splendour (the splendour as of a father’s only son), full of grace and truth…For while the Law was given by Moses, love and truth came through Jesus Christ” (John 1:14-17, PHILLIPS, Emphasis Mine). 

Because Christ is truth, HE lived the truth. Because Christ is truth, the radical Christian should live the truth. This is Christlikeness, and this is the truth.

Living in the truth demands living against lies. Christ opposed lies through HIS words and deeds. Christ did not tolerate business in the temple; HE threw the businessmen out. Christ did not tolerate the Pharisees, Scribes and Teachers of the Law; HE condemned them. Christ lived the truth by confronting and condemning evil.

One such evil / lie is in ‘groupism’ that manifests through undesirable and unjustifiable caste and clan hierarchies.

The Evil of Casteism

Any social system that glorifies some and ruins others is evil. Caste system deems some as superior, others as average and yet others as despicable.

At some point in time Christians embraced Casteism. As a result, there is the unwritten but highly prevalent upper and lower caste Christians!  This inequality is offensive to God and man.

God did not create people as unequals - superior and inferior. God created mankind as equals; the only distinction HE built into mankind is the gender - male and female.

If you walk into some churches in India, you will observe casteism in its glorious evil splendor. People belonging to a specific caste will occupy all-powerful positions. To be politically correct, they may donate meaningless or subordinate roles to other castes. In some instances, they are so full of themselves that they totally disregard people of other castes.

Casteism manifests defiantly and differently as well. This is a matrimonial advertisement by a Christian in “The Hindu,” dated 20-Jan-2014: 

“CSI NADAR 26/174 B.E., MBA (IIM, Ahmedabad) working in MNC seeks suitable employed B.E./M.E. Nadar girl, aged below 24 years…THE HINDU,Madurai-625020. (Published on Jan 19, 2014)”

‘CSI’ refers to Church of South India, ‘Nadar’ is a caste, and ‘IIM’ is Indian Institute of Management – a premier academic institution in India. Here is a well educated Christian boy and his parents desiring only a girl from the same caste. Why?

I do not see any valid reason for this demand. The only reason I see is that the parents and the boy have not understood the Bible. Hence this caste cruelty will proceed for generations in this household until they see the light of Christ’s gospel in their life.

Is inequality correct? It’s not even correct from an irreligious vantage point. Is inequality biblically correct? No! The Bible does not support evil practices that destroy man’s inherent worth.

The Bible urges everyone to serve each other. The Bible encourages us to descend into greatness; never to ascend to greatness (Luke 18: 14).

Casteism is a lie. People are not born superior or inferior. All men and women are made in the image of God.

There is another form of casteism in churches.

I was once visiting a very small church. During communion, the pastor announced that only those who have been baptized by that church can partake in the Lord’s table. Since I was the only non-member of that church in attendance that day, I was sure that the pastor’s announcement was intended at me.

For the sake of peace during that worship service I considered it unwise to violate pastor’s mandate. Respecting the church’s policy, I didn’t partake in the Lord’s table. However, I did not agree with the Pastor’s mandate. It was absurd. The bible does not make those demands on communion.

Christians should not be a part of caste based groups be it in church, social media, public or private. Christians cannot subscribe to casteism in any form or size.

The Evil of Clannishness

Inequality manifests in other ways as well. Consider clannishness, and more specifically language based clannishness.

There is nothing wrong in a church that worships God in a specific language. Of course, churches worshipping in a specific language will attract people speaking that language. This is acceptable. There is nothing wrong in gravitating towards our friends and neighbors speaking the same language.

But some Christians are so caught up into language based clannishness that we go to the extent of disrespecting or antagonizing Christians speaking other languages. Clannishness raises its ugly hood when we focus and support only those speaking our language to the point of disregarding or eliminating the ‘others’ from our group(s).

A Church of South India diocese that I shall leave unnamed has its Bishop-elect waiting to assume his office since a good number of pastors are protesting his election. Why? The Bishop-elect originally belongs to a neighboring state (speaking a different language)!

What’s wrong if a pastor (from a neighboring state) gets elected as a bishop of a diocese (of another state) that he has been serving? Why should the local pastors protest this man’s election? Should the bishop be elected on the basis of his language / state or because of his anointing (cf. Acts 6: 3)?

There should not be any language based clannishness in the Church of Jesus Christ. There cannot be conflicts between language groups in the Church. This is an abomination.

Isn’t this an evil instance of clannishness politics? Would Christ affirm clannishness? No! 

To conclude, Christ came for all men, not just the Jews or for a specific people group. HE came to save all men.  

When we overtly or covertly subscribe to casteism or clannishness of any form, we are not living a Christlike life. To be radical as the Lord is to love all our neighbors equally - without partiality - just as we love ourselves and just as Christ loved us.  Amen. 

The Radical Christian Always Loves The Sinning Christian

The theme of my previous blog was about loving our neighbor by overcoming our instinctive self-righteousness.  But some Christians may use passages such as 1 Corinthians 5: 11-13 to expel and disassociate from their fellow Christians. If this teaching is univocal in its application, expelling or disassociating from our fellow Christian sinners may be the right decision always. But is this teaching univocal in application?

In other words, is the Bible instructing a Christian (a sinner by nature) not to associate with a fellow Christian who sins? Is the Bible also instructing the church to expel this [willfully] sinning Christian from the church?

Please read the verses in three different translations in the table below:

1 Corinthians 5: 11-13 (Emphases mine)

New American Standard Bible (NASB)	New International Version (NIV)	J.B. Phillips New Testament (PHILLIPS)
…I wrote to you not to associate with any so-called brother if he is an immoral person, or covetous, or an idolater, or a reviler, or a drunkard, or a swindler—not even to eat with such a one…Remove the wicked man from among yourselves.	…I am writing to you that you must not associate with anyone who claims to be a brother or sister but is sexually immoral or greedy, an idolater or slanderer, a drunkard or swindler. Do not even eat with such people…Expel the wicked person from among you.	…I tell you not to associate with any professing Christian who is known to be an impure man or a swindler, an idolater, a man with a foul tongue, a drunkard or a thief…Don’t even eat with such a man…It is your plain duty to ‘put away from yourselves that wicked person.’

  

The sins necessitating disassociation and expulsion from church fellowship are, Incest (v1), immorality, greed, idolatry, slander, drunkenness and swindling. These sins could be described as follows:

1. Immorality: Prostitution and sinful sexual intercourse of any kind.

2. Greed: Greed of gain, especially at the cost of others. Greedy are the power hungry people within the church of Jesus Christ. They could be those not contesting for positions in the church but also sponsoring unworthy candidates through unworthy means.

Then there is a personal greed for greater personal glory – material and spiritual, within and outside the church. Amassing wealth, being corrupt and aiding corruption are included in the sin of greed.

3. Idolatry: Person(s) worshipping (revering / following) false gods. Since the context of this passage refers to Christians, it is obvious that Christians will not be worshipping false gods, such as the deities of Hinduism, Islam etc.

But there could be other gods the Christian worships. A Christian’s work, career, talent, materials are some false gods. 

4. Slander: To slander is to defame or abuse others with or without using foul language. Slander includes ‘false accusations.’  

5. Drunkenness: Getting intoxicated through substance abuse – alcohol, drugs etc.

6. Swindling: To rob / take ownership of anything that is not rightfully one’s own.

7. Incest: Sexual relationships with any member of family where marriage is forbidden.

Sinner’s Character

The context of 1 Corinthians 5 implies that the sinner was unrepentant and willfully continuing in his horrendous sin, maybe even disregarding valid biblical counsel. Since the sinner within this context is a Christian, one could question this Christian’s truthfulness or maturity as the Lord’s disciple. No one claiming to be a true or a mature disciple of the Lord Jesus Christ would willingly and hedonistically continue sinning.

Biblical Consistency

Is this teaching to disassociate or expel in 1 Corinthians 5: 11-13 biblically consistent?

The teaching ‘do not associate and expel’ seems to be a commentary of Deuteronomy 13: 5, 17:7, 19:19, 22:21-24, 24:7 and Judges 20: 13. This New Testament teaching is consistent with the Old Testament.

The Bible advocates ‘disassociation’ for other sins as well.

Scripture	Sin	Consequence
Romans 16: 17; Titus 3: 10	Divisiveness	Disassociation
2 Thessalonians 3: 6-10	Laziness and refusal to work	Disassociation
2 John 10-11	Teaching heresies	Disassociation

Did Christ teach similarly? Yes, Christ’s condemnation of the Pharisees, Scribes and the teachers of the law are very similar. Christ’s condemnation of the religious leaders of HIS time appears to be an eternal condemnation (Matthew 23: 33). The disassociation and expulsion taught in 1 Corinthians 5 is temporal aimed at saving the sinner  (1 Corinthians 5: 5).

So yes, the teaching is consistent with the biblical teaching on the whole.

Practical Pitfalls

Is this teaching easy to execute or are there any practical pitfalls that demands greater diligence before executing?

Identifying sins of drunkenness, swindling, slander, idolatry and greed are more complicated than identifying the sins of incest and sexual immorality.  Take drunkenness as a case in point. A Christian may get intoxicated in one drink and another may drink like a fish and still remain normal and stable. There are some who drink once a week and get intoxicated, while there are others who cannot live without their one or two drinks every day. If a Christian cannot be at peace without his daily drink, he is an addict. How then should the church disassociate / expel fellow Christians, and based on what policies?

If a Church or a Christian disassociates or expels a practicing sinner on account of one of these sins, it ought to disassociate or expel sinners practicing all the sins mentioned in 1 Corinthians 5. If all churches are firm in disassociating or expelling fellow Christians on account of these sins, then these churches could eliminate a great number of her members. Moreover, every Christian would have less or no Christian friends. Correct me if I am wrong! Expelling one member and not others is an inconsistent practice amounting to partiality, which in itself is a sin.

Disassociation or expulsion is not a case of perfection judging the imperfection. It is the case of one imperfection judging another. Those who enforce expulsion or disassociation are not superior to the one being disciplined.

Given this scenario, the church should exhibit greater grace and love before embarking on disassociation or expulsion.

Preeminence of Love and Grace

The Lord in HIS incarnation was abundantly gracious to sinners. HE taught against sin but at the same time, HE forcefully emphasized grace through forgiveness. The Lord’s words to the woman caught in adultery was to ‘go and sin no more,’ the statement in the Lord’s prayer was to ‘forgive us as we forgive our debtors,’ and HIS teaching that we should forgive always (Matthew 18: 22) should remain in us always.

Apostle Paul echoes his God in Galatians 6: 1-2, “Even if a man should be detected in some sin, my brothers, the spiritual ones among you should quietly set him back on the right path, not with any feeling of superiority…” (Phillips). 

Disassociation and expulsion should be the last step of restoring the believer to HIS maker. Love and grace should precede and possibly supersede disassociation and expulsion. 

Case for Disassociation and Expulsion

Disassociation and expulsion could be affirmed from the perspective of church discipline. One corrupt man can ruin the whole group, so in the interest of group’s spiritual wellness it is better to expel that one corrupt person. The Bible affirms this action.

The benefits of this action are:

(1) To restore the sinning believer (Galatians 6: 1).

(2) To keep the sin from spreading inside the church.

(3) To protect church’s purity.

It would be grossly unjust if a person who has not sinned is either expelled or disassociated. Thus disassociation and expulsion should be implemented if accusations are proven, the sinner clearly convicted of his sin, and if he is unrepentant and willfully continuing in sin.

I believe hell to be a reality. God’s grace is active only until HIS righteous judgment. Christ’s judgment does not offer grace to the unbeliever. When an unbeliever willfully rejects Christ, God allows the unbeliever to remain without HIM throughout eternity. Thus, expulsion of an unrepentant sinner from the church or from a Christian’s domain is valid because grace ends when the sinner rejects Christ’s teaching to not sin willingly.¹

If the sinful Christian in contention is a church elder, he/she should be treated as per the teaching found in 1 Timothy 5: 19 – 21.

Having said this, I do not consider this teaching to be the only viable option for the church when it encounters sins in her members. Disassociation or expulsion should be the last option for the church or a Christian. Valid biblical counsel should essentially precede expulsion or disassociation. It is the church / Christian’s sole responsibility to ensure that expulsion or disassociation be soaked in love than rejection or condemnation. 

Being Radical

If a professing Christian is sexually immoral (incest, premarital sex, homosexuality etc.), and if he is unrepentant and willfully continuing in his sin, then, as a last option, he could be expelled from the church, but graciously and lovingly.

However, a radical Church / Christian would continue to love this person. But doesn’t the Bible teach us not to eat with this unrepentant Christian (1 Corinthians 5: 11)? Yes the Bible does teach that, but the Bible also teaches that we should restore a fellow sinner, so we could follow Galatians 6:1.

I would rather err on the side of grace than on the side of law. I would do this in hope and prayer that my brother/sister would stop sinning and be restored by the grace of God.

While loving this person, we could teach the Bible and the real meaning of being a disciple of the Lord – that discipleship includes hating and not practicing sins. Thus this person can grow into truth and maturity as the Lord’s disciple.

Radical Christians would continue to love their fellow sinners for they have little or no means to identify their fellow Christians who are greedy, idolatrous, slanderous, drunken, and swindling.

Personally I don’t think it’s wise to expel one sinner and at the same time allow ten sinners to prosper and grow in their sins. This is not the Christian life Christ would want me to live. So I would rather err on the side of grace than on the side of law.  

Endnotes:

¹ Christians who do not believe in hell and believe in universalism will reject this teaching of expulsion and disassociation. If these Christians accept the teaching of expulsion and disassociation, then they are hypocritical in their practice. Why would you reject a sinning Christian when God, according to the universalistic belief, does not reject anyone – even the most compulsive sinner?