11,143
edits
Adoptionism: Difference between revisions
no edit summary
No edit summary |
No edit summary |
||
| (4 intermediate revisions by the same user not shown) | |||
| Line 1: | Line 1: | ||
'''Adoptionism''' (also referred to as'''dynamic monarchianism''') owes its origin to Theodotus, a leather-merchant active in Rome about AD 190, and was spread by Paul of Samosata, bishop of Antioch, who was condemned for his views by the church in AD 268.<ref>Sinclair B. Ferguson and J.I. Packer, New Dictionary of Theology (Downers Grove, IL: InterVarsity Press, 2000), 6.</ref> | '''Adoptionism''' (also referred to as '''dynamic monarchianism''') owes its origin to Theodotus, a leather-merchant active in Rome about AD 190, and was spread by Paul of Samosata, bishop of Antioch, who was condemned for his views by the church in AD 268.<ref>Sinclair B. Ferguson and J.I. Packer, New Dictionary of Theology (Downers Grove, IL: InterVarsity Press, 2000), 6.</ref> | ||
Adoptionism is most commonly applied to the notion that Jesus was merely an ordinary man of unusual virtue or closeness to God whom God ‘adopted’ into divine Sonship. Adoptionism was rooted in second-and third-century monarchianism but also flourished in the eighth century. According to adoptionism, Jesus was only a man but was adopted by God because of His sinless life. This is said to have occurred when God declared from heaven: “This is my Son.” (Matt. 3:17).<ref>Norman L. Geisler, Systematic Theology, Volume Two: God, Creation (Minneapolis, MN: Bethany House Publishers, 2003), 297.</ref> | Adoptionism is most commonly applied to the notion that Jesus was merely an ordinary man of unusual virtue or closeness to God whom God ‘adopted’ into divine Sonship. Adoptionism was rooted in second-and third-century monarchianism but also flourished in the eighth century. According to adoptionism, Jesus was only a man but was adopted by God because of His sinless life. This is said to have occurred when God declared from heaven: “This is my Son.” (Matt. 3:17).<ref>Norman L. Geisler, Systematic Theology, Volume Two: God, Creation (Minneapolis, MN: Bethany House Publishers, 2003), 297.</ref> | ||
| Line 19: | Line 19: | ||
:'''''He never died as God. He died as a man.''' The sin of man was upon the Son of man, and He had to become a man in order to pay the penalty.<ref>William Branham, THE MIGHTY CONQUEROR, JEFF.IN, 56-0401M</ref> | :'''''He never died as God. He died as a man.''' The sin of man was upon the Son of man, and He had to become a man in order to pay the penalty.<ref>William Branham, THE MIGHTY CONQUEROR, JEFF.IN, 56-0401M</ref> | ||
:''When He was--last cry, "Eli, Eli. My God, My God," '''That was a man'''. "Why hast Thou forsaken Me?" | :''When He was--last cry, "Eli, Eli. My God, My God," '''That was a man'''. "Why hast Thou forsaken Me?" | ||
:'''''In the Garden of Gethsemane, the anointing left Him''', you know, He had to die as a sinner. '''He died a sinner''', you know that; not His sins, but mine and yours. That's where that love come in, how He took mine. Oh, hallelujah, how He took mine.<ref>William Branham, ADOPTION 2, JEFF.IN, 60-0518</ref> | :'''''In the Garden of Gethsemane, the anointing left Him''', you know, He had to die as a sinner. '''He died a sinner''', you know that; not His sins, but mine and yours. That's where that love come in, how He took mine. Oh, hallelujah, how He took mine.<ref>William Branham, ADOPTION 2, JEFF.IN, 60-0518</ref> | ||
==William Branham's proof from the Greek== | |||
William Branham stated that when Jesus was baptized God chose to enter into him. And what was his evidence for making this claim? | |||
It was that the English translation was wrong, and he had the right translation from Greek: | |||
:''...the day that when John baptized Him, God a vindicated Him. God spoke from the heavens. John saw Him coming in the form a dove, and said, 'This is My beloved Son in Whom I'm pleased to dwell.' The right translation there is, 'In whom I am pleased to dwell in.' Jesus immediately anointed with God, He was just a man till that time, but now He becomes the God-man.<ref>Jesus Christ the Same Yesterday, Today and Forever, preached in Campbellsville, KY, 1955 (tape #55-0806J) </ref> | |||
William Branham’s claim here is that the Greek text should give us the right translation of “in whom I’m pleased to dwell in.” Let’s look at another example from the “Seven Seals” series: | |||
:''Now, in there it says, "This is my beloved Son, in Whom I am well pleased." You see? Now, that's wrote in the actual form of the Greek, putting verb before adverb; but you notice here, it'd actually be this... Now, just take the Word. See? The Bible says, in the translation of St. James here: "This is My beloved Son in Whom I'm pleased to dwell." But actually, if we'd say it like we'd say it today: "This is My beloved Son in Whom I'm pleased to dwell in." You'd turn it around. See, see? "This is My beloved Son in Whom I'm pleased to dwell." See? Now, we'd say it today: "This is My beloved Son in Whom I'm pleased to dwell in," (See?) same word just turns it around. See?<ref>Questions and Answers on the Seals," Revelation of the Seven Seals, 1963 (tape #63-0324M)</ref> | |||
But what does the actual Greek say? Matthew 3:17 states: | |||
:καὶ ἰδοὺ φωνὴ ἐκ τῶν οὐρανῶν λέγουσα· οὗτός ἐστιν ὁ υἱός μου ὁ ἀγαπητός, ἐν ᾧ εὐδόκησα. ''And behold, a voice from heaven saying, this is my beloved son, in whom I am well pleased.'' | |||
Matthew 3:17 in the Greek does not say, “''in whom I’m well pleased to dwell in''.” Nor does it say that in any Greek manuscript we have. | |||
So we can conclude that William Branham was wrong. God did not enter into Jesus at his baptism. | |||
The critical question is why would William Branham say something that was so clearly wrong and had no basis in fact? | |||
And we would ask the reader the question: Is Scripture my authority, or is William Branham? | |||
Many will say the Scriptures! But the reality is, if you are a message follower, you trust in William Branham, and not Christ. | |||
=Monarchianism= | =Monarchianism= | ||
| Line 30: | Line 57: | ||
If the premise “God is one” is foremost in one’s thinking about the Godhead, then the deity of the Son and the deity of the Holy Spirit can be problematic. If God (the Father) is God, and Jesus (the Son) is God, to some it appeared that there were two gods. Additionally, if the Holy Spirit is God, then they would argue that a belief in three gods is affirmed. Although this is not what the doctrine of the Trinity teaches, this was the underlying difficulty that both movements sought to address<ref>Gregg R. Allison, Historical Theology: An Introduction to Christian Doctrine (Grand Rapids, MI: Zondervan, 2011), 235.</ref> | If the premise “God is one” is foremost in one’s thinking about the Godhead, then the deity of the Son and the deity of the Holy Spirit can be problematic. If God (the Father) is God, and Jesus (the Son) is God, to some it appeared that there were two gods. Additionally, if the Holy Spirit is God, then they would argue that a belief in three gods is affirmed. Although this is not what the doctrine of the Trinity teaches, this was the underlying difficulty that both movements sought to address<ref>Gregg R. Allison, Historical Theology: An Introduction to Christian Doctrine (Grand Rapids, MI: Zondervan, 2011), 235.</ref> | ||
=Classical adoptionism | =Classical adoptionism= | ||
As indicated above, adoptionism is the doctrine that Jesus was just an ordinary man, though one who was particularly good and holy. The Spirit (or Christ) descended upon Jesus at his baptism, enabling him to perform miracles without making him divine. Thus, Jesus was a man indwelt in an unusually powerful manner by the Spirit, but he was not God. <ref>Gregg R. Allison, Historical Theology: An Introduction to Christian Doctrine (Grand Rapids, MI: Zondervan, 2011), 235.</ref> | As indicated above, adoptionism is the doctrine that Jesus was just an ordinary man, though one who was particularly good and holy. The Spirit (or Christ) descended upon Jesus at his baptism, enabling him to perform miracles without making him divine. Thus, Jesus was a man indwelt in an unusually powerful manner by the Spirit, but he was not God. <ref>Gregg R. Allison, Historical Theology: An Introduction to Christian Doctrine (Grand Rapids, MI: Zondervan, 2011), 235.</ref> | ||