Re: Cathars from Re: ICR's ACTS AND FACTS

William Hamilton wrote:
>
> On Saturday, March 6, 2004, at 03:14 PM, John W Burgeson wrote:
>
> > Are you saying that if one denies that Jesus was both fully God and
> > fully
> > human then that person is necessarily not a Christian, and therefore is
> > not saved?
>
> This brings to mind the position of many (not all) Messianic Jews.
> Many Messianic Jews hold to the position that Jesus is not divine. Yet
> they acknowledge him as son of God and assert that there is no other
> name under heaven given among men whereby we might be saved. Where does
> that leave them?

        It is important to make the distinction between faith and theology. The
critical aspect of faith is trust - although it also involves knowledge (i.e., knowing
who or what you trust in). Theology, on the other hand, is essentially thinking about
faith. A person can put his or trust in Jesus in life and in death without holding
intellectually to the christological statements of Nicea and Chalcedon. Paul & Silas
tell the jailer at Philippi, "Believe _in_ the Lord Jesus and you will be saved" - not
"believe _that_ the Lord Jesus is truly divine and truly human" or something like that.

        But the importance of theological reflection shouldn't be minimized. Nicea &
Chalcedon were the results of 3 centuries of Christians thinking about the implications
of trusting in Jesus as Lord and savior. E.g., if he isn't in some sense God then
putting one's ultimate trust in him would be a violation of the 1st Commandment. &
having reached that point, an intelligent adult today who denies the divinity of Christ
but still wants to be known as a Christian is, at the least, refusing to take seriously
the task of thinking through his or her faith. That doesn't mean that that person is
automatically going to hell, but that sort of superficial theology should be
discouraged. It can, among other things, be injurious to the faith of others and cause
the church to preach an uncertain gospel.

        The situation of Messianic Jews is somewhat different because many of them have
come to the faith outside the historical process that runs through Nicea and Chalcedon.
We know that there were Jewish Christians in the early church who held adoptionist
christologies which were eventually found to be inadequate. Messianic Jews today may be
in the same situation today, and patience is in order.

        As I noted earlier, the christological heresy of the Cathars was the denial of
the true _humanity_ of Christ, not his divinity. (Though a gnostic redeemer could be
"divine" without really being "God.") This calls for somewhat different arguments.

                                                        Shalom,
                                                        George

George L. Murphy
gmurphy@raex.com
http://web.raex.com/~gmurphy/
Received on Sun Mar 7 09:45:30 2004