KevinE

I'm new here, so I haven't figured out how to put the quotes from previous people into one's message in the elegant way that everyone else has, but I wanted to reply to this statement from JES earlier in this thread:

"Do any current denominations still adhere to Adoptionism or was it declared a heresy and most Christian groups reject it, even though there appears to be ample support for it in the Bible?"

It seems to me that the few sophisticated Christians who really appreciate the Biblical texts that support Adoptionism would want to claim that the Church has gradually, over an extended period of time, gained more sophisticated understanding of the doctrines surrounding Christology (via the guidance of the Holy Spirit). Thus, according to this Christian perspective, folks like Peter and Paul were still struggling to figure out how to think about Christ's divinity at that point. This response seems to work particularly well for Roman Catholics, who emphasize that Scripture must be read in the context of the Church's ongoing guidance (though I'm not claiming that this response is totally convincing even from their perspective).

And if anyone wants to teach me how to do those quotes, that would be great!

Toto

Welcome to the Boards, Kevin.

If you click on the button that says "QUOTE" on the left side of a post, you will get a Reply box with that text surrounded by [ quote = user ] [ / quote ] (without the spaces). After you type your repoly and hit enter, this will be translated into the fancy quote box that you see.

Or you can format your own quote boxes, or use the little MS Word - type icons above the Reply box.

KevinE

Thanks for your help figuring out how to do quotes, Toto. In addition to my previous point about the fact that some Christians might want to say that the Church has gained increasing understanding of Christology over time, it occurred to me that it might also be helpful to make a distinction between the moves that whole denominations make and the moves that individual Christians make.

For example, even though there are probably few, if any, modern denominations that would accept Adoptionism, I have a hunch that a number of fairly liberal Christians might accept something a bit like it. Many of those who are familiar with the messy Christology present in the NT and who remain affiliated with Christian denominations are probably the liberal folks who would just reject orthodox forms of Christianity anyway. If they still believe in a God, they might be inclined to say that Jesus was indeed a man who, in some sense, had a particularly close relationship with God and was vindicated by God after his death--something a bit like the Adoptionism present in the passages by Peter and Paul.

Toto

I suspect that you are right about some liberal theistic Protestants, although they are a vanishing breed. Other Christians go even farther and believe god is dead (or at least too abstract to exist) and Jesus was just a special person, which is going beyond adoptionism.

There is no God and Jesus is his chief prophet

CJD

It seems to me that the Christadelphians come real close. Maybe if Evangelion sees this thread he can give us an insider's opinion.

As far as the Pauline passages are concerned, we must be careful not to interject a strong greekish notion of "natures," etc., into them. Romans 1:3b–4 is especially telling. Horizo literally means "marked out as," so that the passage basically reads that this Jesus was born of David's line and that the resurrection marked him out as the Messiah (objectively, to all who hear of it). This issue is not when he became Messiah, the issue has more to do with the idea that the event proved his messiah-ship (that he was who he said he was all along), and that he was really given authority that he did not enjoy previously in this particular life. I suspect the Acts 2 pericope (as well as the so-called "kenotic hymn" of Phil.) says little more than this.

Again, the passage is not talking about some dualistic notion of Jesus' "humanity" on one hand and his "divinity" on the other. It's about Paul's "gospel" — the announcement that this Jesus is both Lord and Christ.

Regards,

CJD

[Edited to add: See this friendly debate (page 2) I had with Evangelion over the Phillipians pericope.]