Puzzletop's Place

I found the premise of the movie concerned itself with the basis of freedom in the academic world and its effect when that freedom is removed. If science is seeking answers to the big questions of life then what is incorrect in the process of discovering that there might be something that explains science apart from natural processes?

The idea of finding an alternative from God creating life and or the universe based on natural processes was hailed back in the days of Darwin for the same reason it is now. Explaining life without God gives those who want no God a reason to live the type of life they choose. Without God means no moral absolutes to deal with. Using Darwinism as reasonable explanations makes anyone who disagree with you a religious baboon. The attitude of Richard Dawkins in the movie was demonstrated by his glee in being asked what he had said about God. Stein went on to quote him saying something hateful but Dawkins smirked and said that was not entirely correct and opened his book to read a longer more venomous diatribe on what he said concerning God. This performance by Dawkins, represented the hateful attitude that evolutionists have toward religion and in particular Christianity. Comparing a holy God to their sarcasm by calling Him the Flying Spaghetti Monster openly shows their arrogance and hostility.

If they can use evolution to justify their denial and refusal of God they most certainly will. If they find any breach of that paradigm they will use the full force of their politics and authority to deny anyone questioning it. Expelled shows where this thinking and attitude leads people to go when they embrace Darwinism for explanations for the big questions of life. If you happen to get in the way you will be expelled. It’s that simple.

Attempting to Explain the Incarnation of Jesus.

Why is it so important that Jesus was born of a virgin?

This question usually can be answered quickly and easily in that it was to fulfill prophecy. Isaiah 7:14 ESV… therefore the Lord himself will give you a sign, Behold the virgin shall conceive and bear a son and shall call his name Immanuel. (Immanuel means God is with us)

This however is only a surface answer when defending the faith we are to contend for as Christians. This is only the tip of the iceberg as we shall see.

When posed with this question from those outside Christianity it usually has an undercurrent that wishes to pull the unsuspecting Christian under and drown him/her into causing doubt in their mind to the Christian doctrine of the Incarnation.

Muslims who ask these questions do not seem to comprehend that Allah or whom Christians call God (Jehovah) would volunteer he to become human.

If a defender of Islam is asked if he could become a human since he is all-powerful. The Muslim apologist will not answer the question and proceed to argue that God being the almighty creator has no need to become a man. They delight in using an analogy similar to this:

An engineer who invents a VCR does not need to become a VCR to know what it will or will not do. They will stretch their analogy to absurdity to convince an audience the foolishness of asking such a question. This reasoning does not answer the question if God could become a human if he so wished to. It is only intended to intimidate the person asking the question.

Is there something that intrinsically prohibits God from becoming a mere mortal?

We find answers to this question in the Christian Bible, which asserts and teaches that He did indeed enter his creation to become human yet remain God at the same time.

Philippians 12:6-8 ESV

Vs. 6 Who, though he was in the form of God, did not count equality with God a thing to be grasped,

(Jesus released voluntarily his position of God to become human keeping his nature as God but also taking on the nature of a man.)

Vs.7 but made himself nothing, taking the form of a servant, being born in the likeness of men. And being found in human form,

Vs 8 he humbled himself by becoming obedient to the point of death, even death on a cross.

Refer back to the Old Testament this truth from Isaiah 9:6 ESV

For to us a child is born, -(human birth)

to us a son is given; - (Son of God)

and the government shall be upon his shoulder,

and his name shall be called

Wonderful Counselor, Mighty God, -(God almighty)

Everlasting Father, Prince of Peace.

The verse above talks about Jesus as God enters his creation as God in human form. He comes in as a baby who grows to be a man.

The proof text that supports this is in the next chapter where he is referred again by the same Hebrew word translated:

He is referred to be Mighty God = God almighty -Isaiah 10:21

A remnant will return the remnant of Jacob, to the Mighty God.

The same Hebrew word is used in both instances to make clear that it is not just someone calling themselves a god but God himself. Mighty God means God Almighty.

New Testament support for Jesus being God

The next beautiful phrase we see to support this is found in the New Testament.

John 1:14 ESV

And the Word became flesh and dwelt among us, and we have seen his glory, glory as of the only Son from the Father, full of grace and truth.

Jesus the Word of God (LOGOS) did not cease being the Logos (The Word) but at the same time became a human being. Jesus took on the very nature of a human being but remained in His divine nature at the same time. This is the basis of the Incarnation.

The Church wrestles with the problem of explaining the truth of the Incarnation

The reading of the Bible can bring about a number of interpretations. The politics of who is popular or powerful can amplify that interpretation whether it be true or not.

For the next three hundred years the Church would undergo terrific persecution and tumult. The Church regardless had to discover from the Cannon of Scripture the truth of the matter. That truth would emerge to be articulated as the orthodox doctrine of the Incarnation. Along the way the Church had to deal with some thoughts and interpretations that had to be resolved.

Appolinaris the Bishop of Laodicea A.D. 361 declared that Jesus had a body but not a human mind or spirit. This was later labeled a heresy called Appolinarianism. Which did the other church leaders reject out of hand. They countermanded that the mind and spirit needed redemption and not just the body by the Redeemer. Jesus’ Sacrifice was in totality for the redemption of believers. His sacrifice was total and perfect for body, mind and spirit.

Nestorius a popular preacher in Antioch A.D. 428 taught Jesus had two beings in one body (i.e. two persons in one body); one divine being and the other not divine. Church leaders rallied against Nestorius and forbid him from his office of preaching. They said that there was nothing in the Bible to support this new thought about Jesus and went further to explain that if two persons were in the one body then there would be two separate wills by two separate people inside the same Jesus. A double-headed deity would not work for them and so Nestorius was out of a job. Nestorianism would later be the title for this heresy.

Eutichus around the same period tried to reconcile the Incarnation by teaching that there was a mixture of divine and human natures that made a new and separate entity apart from being either divine or human. It would be something like sodium and chloride combining to form a new compound called table salt. The new mixture was now something separate and distinct apart from the original “ingredients” of divine and mortal. This absurdity was deemed heretical and also rejected later to be given the name of Eutychianism.

Church Council of Chalcedon A.D. 451

Finally the Church was called to convene at the city of Chalcedon A.D. 451 to resolve this issue. They attempted to put forth an orthodox definition that Jesus was both divine and human at the same time. They denied all the previously discussed interpretations as unorthodox and heretical. Their definition was lacking in that it said what the nature of Jesus was not more than what his nature was.

The creed stated that Jesus has both a separate and distinct human and divine nature and not a mixture. Those natures are found in the one person of our Lord. There are not two persons present but only one. That person is coequal to the Father and the Holy Spirit and share in their same divine nature as the one God. This is part of what is called Chelcedonian Christology by theologians.

More truth from the Incarnation to be articulated by the Church

This would set the basis for further articulation of the truths of Scripture regarding the Trinity. The distinction of natures being by no means taken away by the union, but rather the property of each nature is being preserved. The theological term is called the hypostatic union. The definition is the union of Christ’s human and divine nature in one person (being).

This is a difficult thing to understand with what we have revealed in Scriptures. Whether or not we understand it does not make it untrue. Here is a problem that cannot be easily resolved if stated as follows:

Difficulties with the Incarnation

Jesus at all times has been and remains fully and truly God when either as a baby or asleep on a fishing boat. He maintained and maintains the universe as the Second Person of the holy Trinity. Jesus when he died his body and human nature disconnected but his divine nature remained intact. His divine nature was not affected by his human nature disconnecting from his body during the three days he was in the tomb. We can humbly submit that we do not understand that part but the human part of his death we can agree that all see it’s effect. Physical death happens to us because of our own human nature. All men and women before us have experienced death because we are human by nature and subject to death. However when it comes to our Lord Jesus it is not the same, for Scripture states:

Colossians 1:7 …and he is before all things and in him all things hold together.

Jesus is both divine in nature and human at the same time and at all times. That is why Jesus could truthfully say to the Pharisees that “before Abraham was I am” - John 8:58. There was no clearer statement understood by them because they gathered up rocks to kill him after he said that. They understood perfectly that he was saying he was God. They could only see him as a man, but he in fact was also God to be able to say that.

He said to the disciples that he was leaving them but then said he would be with them always. He can say that without contradiction because of His hypostatic union. In other words; Anything done by one of his natures is also done by the whole person of Christ.

For example; I can wash the dishes with my hands and my feet have nothing to do with that, yet I can say that I washed the dishes. What my hands did, my feet were not washing dishes. This was done at the same time by the same person. The person washing the dishes existed as a person and did the action but the two parts were separated (hands and feet) and only the hands did the action. The feet had nothing to do with what the hands were doing but they still were there at the same time as the hands were when they were washing dishes.

Christ can be human and be doing what his nature allows as a man but can also be doing what He does as God at the same time.