THE ORIGIN OF THE DOCTRINE OF CHRIST's ALLEGED DEITY

Published in Pasugo, Dec 2001

Thinking that the belief that Christ is God is the original Christian
teaching concerning the Lord Jesus Christ, many people suppose that the
Iglesia Ni Cristo only invented the teaching that Christ is man and not God.
Is this really so? What is the original belief of the early Christians
concerning Jesus Christ?

What the Bible teaches about Christ

To shed light on this subject, we will trace the origin of the doctrine of
Christ's alleged deity. But first, we must be reminded of what the Bible
teaches concerning the true nature of Christ. The Lord Jesus introduced
Himself thus:

"But now you seek to kill me, a man who has told you the truth which I
heard from God; this is not what Abraham did." (Jn. 8:40, Revised Standard
Version)

Christ clearly stated that He is a man who has told the truth which He
heard from God. That there is God from whom Christ heard the truth is
another proof that Christ is different from God.

Christ's teaching about His nature is what the apostles affirmed. Apostle
Paul taught:

"For there is one God and one Mediator between God and men, the Man Christ
Jesus." (I Tim. 2:5, New King James Version)

The only Mediator between God and men is a man and not another God. Apostle
Peter and Apostle Matthew taught that Christ is man. Peter declared that
Jesus of Nazareth was a man attested by God ( Acts 2:22, Ibid.). That Christ
is conceived and born of a woman is expressly stated in the Gospel of Christ
according to Matthew (Mt. 1:18:20). Therefore, the claim that Christ is God
contradicts what the apostles taught. Likewise, to introduce Christ as God
contradicts the very statement of God that He is neither man nor a son of
man (Num. 23:19). God neither allows Himself to be both God and man, nor
does He allow man to be both man and God (Ezek. 23:2; Hos. 11:9).

Thus, the original teaching concerning Christ as recorded in the Bible is
that He is man.


The early warning

It is not surprising that there exists today teachings about Christ that
differ from the teachings of Christ and His apostles. As early as their
time, the apostles warned about the possible deviation from the original
teaching concerning Christ. Apostle Paul said:

"I am afraid that your minds will be corrupted and that you will abandon
your full and pure devotion to Christ - in the same way that Eve was
deceived by the snake's clever lies. For you gladly tolerate anyone who
comes to you and preaches a different Jesus, not the one we preached; and
you accept a spirit and a gospel completely different from the Spirit and
the gospel you received from us!" (II Cor. 11:3-4, Today's English Version)

Those, therefore, who teach and believe in Christ's deity are like those
who gladly accepted a "different Jesus" during the time of the apostles.
Apostle Paul called such teaching a different gospel, one that is
unscriptural.

The apostles, who were entrusted to teach the pristine teachings of Christ,
rebuked those who refused to accept that Christ is man:

"Watch out for the false leaders - and there are many of them around - who
don't believe that Jesus Christ came to earth as a human being with a body
like ours. Such people are against the truth and against Christ." (II Jn.
1:7, Living Bible)

During the time of the apostles, there were people who were easily taken
away from the true teaching taught by Christ and His apostles. They denied
the humanity of Jesus Christ. According to Apostle John, these people are
against the truth and against Christ - or anti-Christ (Jn. 1:7, NKJV).
Bible commentators also have noticed this:

"When we read Paul's letter to the church at Corinth, it becomes clear that
many problems faced the church within its own membership.

"Paul's other letters also reveal controversies and power-struggles in the
midst of encouragement and growth...Some people tried to mix Christian and
non-Christian religious beliefs. The first letter of John speaks of those
who once belonged to the Christian community but had now departed. They
denied the true humanity of Jesus Christ." (Handbook to the History of
Christianity, p 73)

While some apostles were still alive, some Christians departed from the
truth by denying the humanity of Jesus Christ. Thus, Apostle John in his
letter addressed these people. He gave a warning to the Christians, lest
they would be misled (II Jn. 1:7).



The formalization of the dogma

The apostles tried as much as they could to ward off the false teaching
about Christ in its inception. But after their demise, the altered doctrine
about the true nature of Christ proliferated. In fact, observers have
noticed many other developments in the history of the Church. In his book, A
Concise History of the Catholic Church, Thomas Bokenkotter said:

"Like its workship, the faith of the Church underwent some development,
and, in fact, its chief dogma, beliefin the divinity of Jesus Christ, was
not defined until the Council of Nicaea in 325." (pp. 58-59)

The doctrine on the deity of Christ was defined only when the Council of
Nicaea convened in the fourth century - over 200 years after the Bible had
been completed; all the apostles were already dead at that time. Even prior
to the formalization of the Christ-is-God doctrine, there were people
already upholding this doctrine. Ignatius of Antioch was found to have
written on this issue:

"The earliest time known at which Jesus was deified was, after the New
Testament writers, in the letters of Ignatius, at the beginning of the
second century." (Systematic Theology, p. 305)

Hence, the teaching that Christ is God did not originate from the apostles.
This started to be formally taught only after the Bible had already been
completed and when all the apostles of Christ were already dead. The warning
of Apostle Paul ( II Cor. 11:3:4) concerning the teaching of a different
Jesus, thus, started to be realized.



The point of conflict

The doctrine of Christ's deity is simply not apostolic. No wonder it has
become a point of countless debates and arguments from the time of its
inception until now. After the time of the apostles, Arius, a presbyter from
Alexandria was among those who rejected this dogma:

"The problem of the relationship between God the Father and His Son Jesus
Christ became an acute problem in the Church soon after te cessation of
persecution. In Western Europe, Tertullian, for example, insisted upon the
unity of essence in three personalities as the correct interpretation of the
Trinity. Hence the dispute centered in the eastern section of the Empire. It
must be remembered that the [Catholic] Church has always had to fight
Unitarian conceptions of Christ...

"In 318 or 319, Alexander, the bishop of Alexandria, discussed with his
presbyters 'The Unity of the Trinity', One of the presbyters, Arius, an
ascetic scholar and popular preacher, attacked the sermon because he
believed that it failed to uphold a distinction among the persons n the
Godhead ... Arius, who was backed by Eusebius of Nicomedia ( to be
distinguished from Eusebius of Caesarea) and a minority of those present,
insisted that Christ had not existed from all eternity but had a beginning
by the creative act of God prior to time. He believed that Christ was of a
different ( heteros) essence or substance than the Father. Because of the
virtue of His life and His obedience to God's will, Christ was to be
considered divine. But Arius believed that Christ was a being, created out
of nothing, subordinate to the Father and of a different esssence from the
Father. He was not coequal, coeternal or cosubstantial with the Father. To
Arius He was divine but not deity." (Christianity Through the Centuries, pp.
142-143)

Take note that Arius lived in the fourth century. Thus, the teaching that
Christ is God was debated upon and remained unacceptable to some even up to
the fourth century. Such acute dispute was seen to be a potential problem
that could cause animosity and division among the officials of the Catholic
Church. This was seen also as a grave threat to the unity of the empire.
When the dispute became so intense, drastic action was taken:

"The controversy became so bitter that Alexander had Arius condemned by a
synod. Arius fled to the friendly palace of Eusebius, the bishop of
Nicomedia... Since the dispute centered in Asia Minor, it threatened the
unity of the Empire as well as that of the Church." (Ibid., p. 143)



Catholic council fails to resolve the dispute

When the controversy regarding the nature of Christ became serious, the
unity of the empire and of the Catholic Church was threatened. Because of
this, the emperor stepped into the scene to settle the dispute:

"The emperor therefore stepped into the controversy and extended
invitations for a great council to be held at Nicaea (325)." ( A Short
History of Christian Doctrine, p. 51)

The emperor's intervention over this doctrinal dispute was simply not
right. How could an emperor who knew nothing of theological issues being
discussed solve such a delicate problem? Thus, Lohse further comments:

"The first emperor to become a Christian, Constantine had basically no
understanding whatsoever of the questions that were being asked in Greek
theology. In the controversy over the doctrine of Trinity he saw nothing
more than unnecessary bickering of theologians, which might best be avoided
by eschewing all speculation and by living together in love and harmony. At
the same time Constantine was concerned about keeping or restoring
ecclesiastiacl peace. After all, the church had an important service to
perform in his empire." (Ibid.)

Constantine was only concerned about keeping or restoring peace and unity
and the important role that the Catholic Church would have in his empire.
Thus, whether or not the disputing officials of the church agree on Christ's
alleged deity of on His humanity was of no bearing to Constantine as long as
they would settle to only one stand that could promote unity. So, what did
Constantine do to influence the bishops who convened so that his interests
and wishes would be served well? Lohse records:

"For the first time in its history, Christianity in the Roman Empire was no
longer the persecuted religion ...From a pure external point of view the
change in the situation was evident to the bishops in the fact that they no
longer needed to move about secretly nor did they have to use the normal
means of travel to visit one another. They now had the privilege of coming
to the council by means of transportation provided by the state, i.e., means
which were intended for use by ranking state officials. At Nicaea the
emperor provided lodging for the bishops in his palace. It was there, too,
that the discussions took place, and in the presence of the emperor at
that... It is understandable if the bishops showed their gratitude by
generous effort to oblige the emperor.

"In the course of the long discussions which now took place at Nicaea the
emperor intervened personally several times." (Ibid., pp. 51-52)

The hospitable granted to the bishops by no less than the emperor himself
was enough to influence their decision on the issue. In fact, they could not
help but yield to the demands of the emperor as an expression of their
gratitude for all the favors they had enjoyed during the meeting. Thus, when
the decision was to be called for, it was the emperor's will that prevailed:

"The Council could not agree and after two years, impatient at the delay,
the Emperor Constantine appeared and addressed the assembly, ordering them
to agree on the divinity of Christ( how could the emperor claim divinity if
the Savior's was denied?)." (Challenge of a Liberal Faith, p. 60)

Finally, in 325 A.D, the council concluded with the decision in response to
the order of the emperor. From then on, Christ has been recognized by the
Catholic Church as God:

"Thus, for example, it was not until 325 A.D. at the Council of Nicaea,
that the Church defined for us that it was an article of faith that Jesus is
truly God." (Discourses on the Apostles' Creed, p. 206)

The issue on what the Catholic Church, the official religion of the Roman
Empire, must stand for concerning Christ might had been settled, but the
disputes and arguments over the issue on Christ's alleged deity did not
stop. Rather, the council was hit by more serious attacks. Louis Berkhof has
this to say:

"The Council of Nicaea was convened in A.D. 325 to settle the dispute...
the decision of the Council did not terminate the controversy, but was
rather only the beginning of it. A settlement forced upon the Church by the
strong hand of the emperor could not satisfy and was also of uncertain
duration. It made the determination of the Christian faith dependent on
imperial caprice and even on court intrigues." (The History of Christian
Doctrines, p. 86-87)

It has now become obvious that what Catholics and Protestants uphold
concerning Christ's deity is an unsettled controversy. Christ did not teach
this teaching - neither did His apostles. Thus, this teaching must be
rejected. Moreover, those who recite the Nicene Creed, also known as the
Apostles' Creed, that contains the declaration of an erroneous faith
concerning the nature of Christ must be reminded of this:

"The Council of Nicaea set many precedents. The Emperor called it,
influenced its decision-making and used his civil power to give its decrees
virtually the status of imperial law. The Council introduced a new kind of
orthodoxy, which for the first time gave non-biblical terms critical
importance. The Creed's own form of expression was influenced by the heresy
it outlawed...

"Nicaea was followed by more than half a century of discord and disorder in
the Eastern church, which at times spilled over into the west." (Handbook to
the History of Christianity, p. 160)

The teaching on Christ's deity is not the original teaching, rather it is a
man-made doctrine and, thus, is worthless in the sight of God (Mt. 15:9).



What the apostles admonish

Having been forewarned of the surge of false teachers who would teach a
false Jesus, Iglesia Ni Cristo members are so vigilant that they may not be
led astray. Apostle Paul admonishes us:

"So then, brothers, stand firm and hold to the teachings we passed on to
you, whether by word of mouth or by letter." (II Thess. 2:15, NIV)

The Iglesia Ni Cristo firmly believes that its teaching concerning the
nature of Christ - that He is man - is the very teaching that the apostles
had taught. This is the original doctrine upheld by the early Christians,
not the dogma formulated by the bishops of the Catholic Church and
formalized at the Council of Nicaea in 325 A.D. For the members of the
Iglesia Ni Cristo, nothing can be more important than to uphold the true
words of God that serve as a firm foundation upon which every Iglesia Ni
Cristo member is anchored. Such is the characteristic that they should
possess for them to become firm and steadfast:

"Then we shall no longer be children, carried by the waves and blown about
by every shifting wind of the teaching of deceitful people, who led others
into errors by the tricks they invent." (Eph. 4:14, TEV)


References

Berkhof, Louis. The History of Christian Doctrines. Michigan: Baker Book
House, 1937.

Bokenkotter, Thomas. A Concise History of the Catholic Church. New York: An
Image Book Doubleday, n.d.

Cairns, Earle E. Christianity Through the Centuries. Michigan: Zondervan
Publishing House 1967.

Crock, Rev. Clement H. Discourses on the Apostles' Creed. New York: Joseph
F. Wagner, 1938.

Dowley, Tim. Eerdman's Handbook to the History of Christianity. England:
Lion Publishing, 1977.

Lohse, Bernhard. Translated by F. Ernest Stoeffler. A Short History of
Christian Doctrine. Philadelphia: Fortress Press, 1966.

Strong, Augustus Hopkins. Systematic Theology. Philadelphia: The Judson
Press, 1907.