The Narrow Path Ministries

Hey everybody,

I've been listening to Steve Gregg's Church History lectures as of late. He makes some comments regarding the early creeds being developed and the debates that surrounded them. He mentions the debate between Arius and Athanasius regarding the deity of Christ which was to determine the institutional Church's decision about what was the orthodox view. Steve mentions that the debate seemed to be in favor of Arius' view until toward the end where Athanasius makes some irrefutable points and ends up winning the debate. First question: Does anyone have a source for this info? Was it from a Church Father?

Second question: Steve mentions that it's possible that Arius and his followers were true Christians and loved Jesus, but had honest inquiries about the deity of Christ due to their reading of the Scriptures. I tend to agree but to double check I've been trying to find a passage of Scripture that deliberately states that believing in the deity of Christ is essential to salvation. I cannot find one. Although I believe the deity of Christ is true, and is overwhelmingly supported by numerous Scriptures, I cannot find a verse that says it is incumbent upon us to believe in Jesus' deity in order to be saved. Many of the passages I've been looking at state that believing Jesus was the "son of God" is imperative for "life" or salvation (John 20:31, Acts 8:37, 1 John 4:15, 1 John 5:10-13), which, I'm sure, the Arians agreed with. Also, 1 John 5:1 says it is necessary to believe Jesus was the Messiah which the Arians also agreed with.

The only passage that possibly comes close to stating that it is imperative to believe in Jesus' deity is the following passage:

I've heard it said by many preachers that when Jesus speaks in verse 24 He is speaking of His deity. "If you do not believe that I AM, you will die in your sins." The word "he" is not in the Greek, so many say that Jesus is making a famous "I AM" statement declaring His divinity. I've often thought this passage meant that, but I've begun thinking otherwise in my reading of it. I believe the question that the Pharisees ask next gives us insight into this conversation, and how Jesus' comment was interpreted by His hearers. They say, "Who are You?" This seems like a legitimate question. They didn't understand (8:27) what Jesus was talking about. IF they interpreted this statement as how it is often interpreted by BIble teachers, it seems that they would respond more like this: "Blasphemy! You are saying that You are God? There is only one God, and He is the Creator! You surely are not God!" It seems to me that Jesus is saying that HE IS SENT by the Father. He is the one who is sent (8:26). So when He says, "I am He", He's saying I am the one God has sent, the Messiah, the Chosen and Anointed One. However, I find it difficult to take this interpretation when I look at John 8:58:

Here Jesus makes another I AM statement and it is interpreted by the hearers as blasphemous enough to decide to throw stones at Him... perhaps they did interpret Jesus' comments as referring to His deity.

Not only do I consider this new interpretation because of the context, but also because of the other ways the phrase "son of God" is used throughout the NT. I've noticed that the term "Christ" is often coupled with the term "son of God". Because of this, I tend to think they might be known as synonymous terms to the Jewish culture of the time. If you search the words "son of God, Christ" in an online Bible software, you will get all the references that describe Jesus as "the Christ, the son of God". One pertinent reference is the following:

Here Caiaphas seems to refer to the term "son of God" as synonymous with "the Christ". Does anyone have any good sources for understanding how the 1st century Jews interpreted this phrase, "the son of God"? Did they believe that it was literally God in the flesh, or that the Messiah would simply be sent by God?

Another verse that is important to consider in this topic is this:

Now this verse seems to suggest that the Jews interpreted the term "son of God" as being "equal with God". I'm not sure exactly in what sense they are saying "equal", perhaps it is equal in authority.. or equal in status. For instance, consider that a son has a wealthy father who owns a farm, and the father lets the son run the farm for him, even though he still retains ownership rights. In one sense, they are equal. But in another, they are still distinctly different.

Any thoughts on this? Can anyone find a specific passage that says it is absolutely necessary to believe in Jesus' deity?

Dear RICHinCHRIST,

A couple passages that immediately come to mind concerning the necessity of believing in the divinity of Christ are the following:

"'As Moses lifted up the serpent in the wilderness, so must the Son of man be lifted up, that whoever believes in him may have eternal life.' For God so loved the world that he gave his only Son, that whoever believes in him should not perish but have eternal life....He who believes in him is not condemned; he who does not believe is condemned already, because he has not believed in the name of the only Son of God." (John 3:14-16, 28; italics added)

I placed the instances of the word "only" in italics because the use of that adjective is what indicates to us the divinity of Christ. By saying that Christ is the "only" Son of God, the Scriptures teach us that Christ is to be distinguished from all other who can be (and are) called "sons" (cf. 1 John 3:1). How is he distinguished? He is distinguished by the fact that He is, by nature, the Son of God, being one and the same God with His Father ("The Word was God." (John 1:1)). Thus, to believe in Christ (or to believe in His Name) is, among other things, to believe in His divinity. So, I believe that this is one passage that teaches us that this kind of faith in Christ (i.e., belief in His divinity) is necessary for salvation.

Furthermore, we have Mark's "great commission" passage:
"'Go into all the world and preach the gospel to the whole creation. He who believes and is baptized will be saved; but he who does not believe will be condemned." (Mark 16:15-16)

Seeing that the divinity of Christ is one of the foundational truths of the Gospel, it stands to follow that believing in the Gospel entails (among other things) believing in the divinity of Christ. Thus, from this passage, it follows that believing in the divinity of Christ is necessary for salvation.

In Christ, True God and True Man,
BrotherAlan

"Jesus Christ is Lord!" (Phil. 2:11)

BrotherAlan wrote:"'As Moses lifted up the serpent in the wilderness, so must the Son of man be lifted up, that whoever believes in him may have eternal life.' For God so loved the world that he gave his only Son, that whoever believes in him should not perish but have eternal life....He who believes in him is not condemned; he who does not believe is condemned already, because he has not believed in the name of the only Son of God." (John 3:14-16, 28; italics added)

I placed the instances of the word "only" in italics because the use of that adjective is what indicates to us the divinity of Christ. By saying that Christ is the "only" Son of God, the Scriptures teach us that Christ is to be distinguished from all other who can be (and are) called "sons" (cf. 1 John 3:1). How is he distinguished? He is distinguished by the fact that He is, by nature, the Son of God, being one and the same God with His Father ("The Word was God." (John 1:1)). Thus, to believe in Christ (or to believe in His Name) is, among other things, to believe in His divinity. So, I believe that this is one passage that teaches us that this kind of faith in Christ (i.e., belief in His divinity) is necessary for salvation.

Thanks for answering Brother Alan. I'm not so sure that I see your point clearly demonstrated in the above passage. I agree with you that Christ is just as much God as the Father is due to the use of the word μονογενής, which is also used in John 1:14, and 1:18 to speak of Jesus being the "only begotten" Son of God. However, I don't know if we can say believing in the "name of the only Son of God" necessarily includes His deity. The concept of "Jesus' name" (at least in my understanding) seems to speak more of His character attributes and of His uniqueness. I don't think Arians disbelieve the uniqueness of Jesus. They recognize that Jesus is the unique son of God, distinctly set apart from all other sons of God. They just don't see Him as being divine, like we do. They recognize that He was sent by the Father and that the Father has given Him authority that is higher than any other "created" being. His uniqueness is not disbelieved by the Arians. If the term "son of God" is just another terminology for the idea of the "Messiah" (like I previously mentioned in my first post), than the Arians believe that Jesus is the only Son of God, the true Messiah who saves us. It must be proven that the idea of Jesus' uniqueness is specifically in regards to Him being divine, rather than all of the other reasons we can speak of Him being unique (i.e., being sent by God, speaking literally ex-cathedrally for God, being the Messiah, dying as an atoning sacrifice, being raised from the dead, receiving God's kingdom to rule and reign, etc.). You use John 1:1, 14, 18 to assume that, and I agree it is true, but is it a necessary aspect for salvation and must it be considered as the sole distinct quality of Jesus' uniqueness? I don't know. Were all the Arians lost and condemned even though they loved and served Jesus but had a different scriptural case for understanding the details of His nature? Perhaps you are correct. I will continue to think and meditate on these passages and consider them.

BrotherAlan wrote: Furthermore, we have Mark's "great commission" passage:
"'Go into all the world and preach the gospel to the whole creation. He who believes and is baptized will be saved; but he who does not believe will be condemned." (Mark 16:15-16)

Seeing that the divinity of Christ is one of the foundational truths of the Gospel, it stands to follow that believing in the Gospel entails (among other things) believing in the divinity of Christ. Thus, from this passage, it follows that believing in the divinity of Christ is necessary for salvation.

This argument is not as strong as your previous one. This passage says nothing about the divinity of Christ, and I cannot think of any passage off the top of my head (there may be one I'm not considering) that describes Christ's divinity as being a distinct aspect of the "Good News of the Kingdom of God". The gospel, from my understanding, is that Jesus is the Christ and has been made Lord of the Universe through His resurrection from the dead and Has established His kingdom (Acts 2:21-39, 13:16-39). God (the Father) commands all men everywhere to repent (Acts 17:30), and to believe that Jesus is the Messiah (1 John 5:1) for regeneration, and to be baptized (Acts 2:38). One must believe Jesus was risen from the dead and that He is Lord (Rom. 10:9). They also must receive the Holy Spirit at regeneration (Eph. 4:30, Rom. 8:9), whether that is pre or post-baptism, I don't think it matters.

The apostles never mentioned Christ's deity in their sermons in the book of Acts. If it was a necessary aspect of believing in Jesus' name, they did not see it necessary to mention it, or at least Luke didn't find it necessary to include it in his paraphrases of their preaching. Also, it seems that the apostles had no idea that Jesus was divine until the Holy Spirit revealed it to them later after Pentecost. Before that time, they were saved by believing that Jesus was the Christ, the son of God sent by the Father, without believing in His divinity apparently. Phillip's understanding of Jesus being the "only son of God" overlooked that Jesus was the direct representation of the Godhead in human form (John 14:8-9). Also, the thief on the cross did not know of Jesus' divinity, but that He was the Lord.

I think Jesus' divinity is an important truth, although I am unsure of its necessity as an essential issue. I tend to hope that there are sincere Jehovah's Witnesses who are true followers of Christ and will be saved just as you or I by their relationship with Jesus, not necessarily their understanding of His nature, although they are mistaken. Paul's comments regarding Jesus' divinity (in Colossians and Romans) were written to Christians, those who already believed. Sometimes I wonder if they were hearing of Jesus' divinity for the first time in those letters, obviously post-regeneration.

How can someone be justly obligated to believe something they have not been convinced of? That would just be fake to pretend you believe in something you are not actually sure about. It's like justification by creed replacing justification by circumcision. It is a matter of knowledge, not a matter of righteousness vs unrighteousness. I personally think Galatians would apply to such ideas even though they are mental instead of outward physical rituals.

I read a bunch of letters from the "Arian Controversy" a while back and I felt bad for Arius at the end of it. I don't necessarily agree with Arius (I do see where he was coming from) but I think the church totally botched the whole issue and it ended up as fuel for all these trinitarian divisions. Didn't the whole consubstantiality blah-blah come out of this?

http://www.fourthcentury.com/index.php/arius-chart

I think we probably have the answer in the bible. I am certain that Jesus existed in heaven before becoming a man, and that his form then was like God's form. Whether he had a beginning or not... I'm inclined to think He is like God having no beginning. For example, that section in Hebrews that compares him to Melchizedek? Maybe that applies?

"having neither beginning of days, nor end of life; but made like unto the Son of God" (Heb 7:3)

Melchi didn't have his birth recorded in the bible, so maybe it is saying this is a picture of Jesus having no beginning?

Either way, it sure ain't a sin to ask. It's not a sin to not know the answer right away.

I tend to hope that there are sincere Jehovah's Witnesses who are true followers of Christ

I believe this is true. Some of them probably hope the same for us

benstenson wrote:
"How can someone be justly obligated to believe something they have not been convinced of? That would just be fake to pretend you believe in something you are not actually sure about."

Well, Christ Himself made faith obligatory ("He who does not believe will be condemned"-- those are His words, not mine). Scripture elsewhere (the letter to the Hebrews) tells us that faith is necessary to be pleasing to God ("Without faith, it is impossible to please God.") Now, true Faith is not the same as believing something because we have, of our own power, "become convinced" of it; rather, true Faith is believing something on the authority of God Who reveals, and Who can neither deceive nor be deceived.

Now, everyone is obligated to believe God, for God can neither deceive nor be deceived. Therefore, whatever God has revealed to be true, we have an obligation to believe, whether we understand it or not (and, fact is, we will never fully understand the mysteries which God reveals about Himself). "Blessed are they who believe, and have not seen [nor understood]." One of the fundamental truths which God, through Jesus Christ, has revealed about Himself is that He (Jesus) is the Son of God, one in substance with the Father (and, thus, He is true God). This is to believed because God has revealed it to be so; and for no other reason is it to be believed.

In Christ,
BrotherAlan

"Jesus Christ is Lord!" (Phil. 2:11)

BrotherAlan wrote:I placed the instances of the word "only" in italics because the use of that adjective is what indicates to us the divinity of Christ.

In the Old Testament, there are verses which describe the coming Messiah that use the term "son of God". This is where I think the term originated.




Did the Jews of Jesus' day use this terminology to refer to the Messiah as being divine? There are so many times in the NT where the term "son of God" is tied in with the idea of the Messiah.









Is it possible that the term son of God just means the Messiah sent from God? Yes, we believe He is divine (on account of other Scriptures), but does believing in Jesus' name, the name of the Messiah, require one's understanding of His divinity? I still know of no such Scripture that makes this claim.

BrotherAlan wrote:benstenson wrote:
"How can someone be justly obligated to believe something they have not been convinced of? That would just be fake to pretend you believe in something you are not actually sure about."

Well, Christ Himself made faith obligatory ("He who does not believe will be condemned"-- those are His words, not mine). Scripture elsewhere (the letter to the Hebrews) tells us that faith is necessary to be pleasing to God ("Without faith, it is impossible to please God.") Now, true Faith is not the same as believing something because we have, of our own power, "become convinced" of it; rather, true Faith is believing something on the authority of God Who reveals, and Who can neither deceive nor be deceived.

Now, everyone is obligated to believe God, for God can neither deceive nor be deceived. Therefore, whatever God has revealed to be true, we have an obligation to believe, whether we understand it or not (and, fact is, we will never fully understand the mysteries which God reveals about Himself). "Blessed are they who believe, and have not seen [nor understood]." One of the fundamental truths which God, through Jesus Christ, has revealed about Himself is that He (Jesus) is the Son of God, one in substance with the Father (and, thus, He is true God). This is to believed because God has revealed it to be so; and for no other reason is it to be believed.

In Christ,
BrotherAlan

"Jesus Christ is Lord!" (Phil. 2:11)

I didn't say they had to understand it, only to be convinced it is true. If someone is convinced that God said it, and like you said "everyone is obligated to believe God" which I agree with, then the person is convinced and obligated. What we are saying is compatible.

RICHinCHRIST wrote:It must be proven that the idea of Jesus' uniqueness is specifically in regards to Him being divine, rather than all of the other reasons we can speak of Him being unique (i.e., being sent by God, speaking literally ex-cathedrally for God, being the Messiah, dying as an atoning sacrifice, being raised from the dead, receiving God's kingdom to rule and reign, etc.).

I was thinking today about this passage from Paul in Acts 13

Perhaps God's defining mark that Jesus was His Son was not His divinity (despite how incredible that is) but rather that He was risen from the dead. Here Paul seems to allude that "begotten" in this context is not referring to Jesus' birth, but to His resurrection from the dead.

Hi everyone,


I read a great article today on the evangelization of Muslims written by a mission strategist and bible scholar named "Rick Brown". you can find it here: http://www.ijfm.org/PDFs_IJFM/17_1_PDFs/Son_of_God.pdf

Little did I know that upon reading this that I would find some evidence that helped me in my assessment of this topic. Rick Brown mentions some of the origins of the term "son of God" and agrees with my assessments and says that most bible scholars agree with me that the term "son of God" is a figurative term for the Christ, or Messiah. However, when I was reading his assessment of the term "Son of Man", I must admit that I had not known too much about why Jesus used that term so frequently except for the passage in Daniel 7:13-14. Brown gives a whole lot of info on this term and it has convinced me that when Jesus used this term He was referring to His deity. The inter-testamental books he mentions all believed that the Son of Man was a heavenly pre-existent Being who was equal to God. Therefore, with this newfound knowledge, and my re-reading of John 8, I've come to the conclusion quite quickly that I believe that belief in Christ's deity is essential to salvation.

I've concluded that when Jesus says, "just what I've been saying since the beginning" He's referring to His claims as the Son of Man, which include His divinity. It seems that when Jesus used this title, He was agreeing with that inter-testamental interpretation of the Jews. This info about the term "Son of Man" (which I previously was confused about) helps me better interpret this passage and also John 8:58.

Although I think that it is essential to believe for salvation, I think what benstenson said might also carry some weight. If Arians and non-Trinitarians are convinced by the Scriptures of their conclusions, then perhaps they will be saved on basis of ignorance despite their incorrect understanding.

Anyway, just wanted to share that I think I've changed my opinion and put heavier weight into this issue than I did previously.

I'm open-minded if anyone can read John 8:24 and not come to the conclusion that this is an essential issue... I just can't seem to reinterpret that verse. Also, if anyone has a different understanding of the title "Son of Man" I am open to hearing that too.