An Idealistic Understanding of the Incarnation

The incarnation is baffling for any human mind. How can the infinite become finite? Well, let us define our terms (see the "Mind-Model" of the Trinity before proceeding). The standard view of the incarnation demands that Jesus, in His one Person, had two complete and distinct natures. These two natures (divine and human), while they do not mix, are perfectly joined. Jesus is a hypostasis-a distinct property bearer-who bears both the the properties of being Divine and human. That means, in His Divine nature, the Son of God is everything that makes God God. He is omniscient, omnipresent, etc. In His human nature, He is everything that makes a human human. These two natures, again, do not mix, but nevertheless are united in the Son of God-the Logos. So how are we to understand this? I don't think I can fully resolve the issue. But I'll try to make it as intelligible as possible. Let's define terms.

Consciousness
Consciousness is the fact of experience, as Sam Harris puts it. It is the fact of perception, of feeling, of color, of knowledge. It is the world we inhabit (see my post "How Consciousness proves the existence of God"). On idealism, consciousness is all that exists (again, see the blog post just mentioned). Consciousness is the system of thoughts, experiences, knowledge, etc that characterize reality.

Personhood
Personhood is the concept of "self" or "ego". It is my "I". It is me; I am a person. Personhood, therefore, can be described as a localization of consciousness. It is the fact that I exist and therefore I am experiencing stuff. Consciousness is an essential part of what it means to be a person. A rock does not possess consciousness, and therefore is not personal. Animals can be said to be personal because they possess (presumably) consciousness. Possessing consciousness-having a system of thoughts and experiences-is an essential part of being a Person. In fact, I'd say Personhood is identical to localized consciousness (again, the fact of the existence of the "self"). It is a distinct center of awareness.

Mind (what I'd also call the Soul) 
Then what is the Mind? I used to define this as one's own consciousness...and therefore, Personhood. But then I realized Jesus has both a human mind and a divine mind. Yet Jesus is not two persons in one Person; He is ONE Person with two natures. Yet He has a human mind. How is this to be understood?

I now suggest that the mind is a center of understanding within localized consciousness. That sounds confusing. A lot of big words. Here's what I mean by that. The mind is the means through which I experience the world. Whereas Personhood is localized consciousness, the mind is what localized consciousness does. Consider this. 

Personhood = italics
Mind = bold

I feel pain. Mind, as a friend of mine helpfully put it, is the self's perception of both itself and the world-the self's relationship to both itself, and the world. Whereas Personhood is the self, the mind is the instrument the self uses to perceive. Thus, it is proper to say that I have a soul, rather than to say I am a soul. So the mind, as the center of understanding within my localized consciousness, is the self's self-awareness. It is the way the self views itself and it's relationship to the world. As I said, having at least one mind is an essential part of Personhood. 

Bipolarism
This is going to be a helpful ANALOGY ONLY to clarify my definition of the mind. I do not want to suggest that the Person of the Son is bipolar. Rather, this can help us understand something about the nature of the mind. I was talking with a very insightful friend at church about this, and she brought up the fact of Multiple Personality Disorder. It's when a singular "self" experiences multiple modes of the self-and yet these modes can sometimes be totally disconnected from one another. What I mean by mode here is: a way of viewing itself. In spite of having multiple personalities, my friend reminded me that there is still only one Person experiencing all of these. There is only one self, yet that self has something like multiple minds (I realize this isn't a perfect analogy, again) that are disconnected from each other. In other words, the mind is the way the self views itself and its relationship to the world. Perhaps that's more precise wording on what exactly I mean by "center of understanding".

The Divine and Human Person
Unlike a bipolar person, the Son's Divine and Human natures are completely united, yet nevertheless distinct. So within the Son's "ego", the Son's sense of "I", He can have two ways of viewing Himself and His relationship to the world, and hence two minds. This is unique to the Son. The Son possesses two minds, whereas the other Persons possess only one mind. While this is mind (hehe) bending, it is not logically incoherent. It may be incomprehensible to our minds, because we only possess a singular mind. Yet within the Son's self, He possesses to ways of viewing Himself and His relationship to all things (i.e two minds). He possess a divine mind, and a human mind. So His one Person possesses two minds.

The Trinity-Cosmic Consciousness, the Universal Mind
Mind with a capital "M" is not the same as mind as I have thus far described it. On idealism, all is mind. Reality is fundamentally mental. Thus, I would define the being of God as Cosmic Consciousness. In other words, God's Being is Consciousness. He is a system of thoughts, perceptions, emotions, etc. Red flags may go off because I have just called God a "system". No worries, He's not an impersonal system, because consciousness is inherently personal ;) 

I'll refer to the Divine Being as the Divine Consciousness from this point on. I STRONGLY recommend you look at my mind-model of the Trinity, as this serves as an edit to it. Replace "center of consciousness" with "localization of consciousness" and I think we should be good. 

Within the Divine Consciousness, there are three distinct localizations of consciousness: Father, Son, and Spirit. To put it in terms of the creeds, there are three personal hypostasis. A hypostasis is just a distinct property bearer. Or in simpler terms, it's a thing with properties. So what this means is that while the Persons of God never operate independently from each other, and while the Father is the source of the Godhead, the properties that make God who He is (omniscience, omnipotence, omnipresence, omnibenevolence) are still distinctly possessed by each Person. So in the Divine Consciousness, there are three hypostasis...we can pretty much use this word interchangeably with "Person" insofar as we are applying it to personal agents. Which we are. Note: I am using the word "distinct" rather than "individual" for a reason. The word "individual" seems to imply a separate existence for each Person. But Scripture testifies wholly against that; God is one. We are not tri-theists. I mean that each Person, while inter-dependent, nevertheless each possess the attributes of God. 

Here's the key thing to remember. These Persons are not "parts" of God. Each Person is fully God. That means, on the idealist view of reality, two things. 
1.) Everything that makes God who He is is possessed by each Person
2.) Each Person shares and operates in the Divine Consciousness fully. So while these localizations of consciousness are distinct centers of information processing in the Divine Consciousness (the Divine Mind, we could say...but I won't for the sake of avoiding confusion), they nevertheless think and operate in perfect unity and accord. The thoughts of all Persons in the Godhead are fully known, and fully comprehended. 

Concluding Thoughts
So this is my model. To most people, this probably looks like silly speculation. It's not if my God exists. It's also matters a ton in how we present the incarnation to the world. We are not to present God as a logically incoherent entity-that dishonors Him. We are to present Him as faithfully as possible. 

I will call my model the "Idealist Incarnation" model. I want to mention one last thing. It is helpful to note that all of reality exists as a projection of the Divine Consciousness. Thus, at least in theory, it's not impossible for Him to unite a human nature to Himself. The common property shared between God and man is consciousness. 

Response to Earl Doherty on Galatians 4

Mythicists are an interesting group. Here, I'm going to critique Earl Doherty's eisegesis of Galatians 4. Here goes. 

"The sending of the Son"

“God sent [the verb exapostellō] his Son.” This verb of sending is used in the Old Testament in connection with the sending of spiritual beings, such as angels, or personified Wisdom as in the Wisdom of Solomon 9:10. The basic form of the verb, apostellō, is regularly used to denote the sending of the Holy Spirit. (The verb and its variants can also be used to speak of ‘sending’ a person.) The identical form of the verb in verse 4, “God sent his Son,” is used in verse 6 to say that “God sent into our hearts the Spirit of his Son.” This is an aorist tense, placing both these actions in the past.Some translations of the verb in verse 6 render it in the perfect tense: “God has sent into our hearts…” but this is misleading. The question is, are the two thoughts, the two “sent” actions, more or less contemporary? Might they essentially be complementary parts of the same process? By using a perfect tense in verse 6, translators set up a “God sent…God has sent,” sequence, as though the second is completely separate and later than the first, the former representing the advent of Jesus and his life on earth, the latter the installation of his Spirit into Paul’s converts a generation after his passing. And no doubt such a translation has been influenced by that assumption. But if the two ‘sendings’ are essentially contemporary, Paul would be relating both to the time of his own activities: the sending in both cases would then relate only to the Spirit of the Son, so that we could take both in the context of the revelation of Christ by God to Paul and his congregations—as including the wider circles of contemporary Christ belief."

Doherty tries to imply that the language used by Paul ("God sent His Son...God sent the Spirit of His Son") implies that they were sent at the same time. Why? Because both are written in the aortist tense. In other words, since they have the same tense, they must have the same time. This, however, is false. Being in the past tense simply necessitate that both have happened in the past. So onto the question: are the two sendings contemporary? What Doherty means by that is that the sending of the Son is temporally co-extensive to the sending of the Spirit. In other words, since the transition of the people from the law to release from the law happens at faith, and Jesus's coming represents the time when the faith was revealed and represents release from the law, and believers are only released from the law when they believe, therefore Jesus's coming must be their spiritual acceptance of Him, not His physical coming. Let explain.

In Galatians 3, you have Paul saying this: " Now before faith came, we were held captive under the law, imprisoned until the coming faith would be revealed. So then, the law was our guardian until Christ came, in order that we might be justified by faith. But now that faith has come, we are no longer under a guardian, for in Christ Jesus you are all sons of God, through faith.

(Galatians 3:23-26 ESV)"

So, according to Doherty, Paul believes that the transition from law to freedom happens when you have faith. Therefore, when Paul says "before faith came, we were held...until the coming faith would be revealed", he means that people were held captive until faith was revealed through Paul's gospel, since the only time they could actually have faith was when Paul's gospel was revealed. The key here is that Doherty views the "coming of faith" NOT as the advent of the historical Jesus, but rather as the advent of faith in the believer's heart. So the "coming of faith" refers to the coming of faith to the believer through Paul's preaching, not to Jesus's work. This is revealing  for why: 

"The intervening verse 24 has been rendered in translations in either of two ways: “…the Law was our tutor until Christ came,” but this contradicts the thought in the two flanking verses which say that it is “faith” that has come. The other is preferable: “…the Law was a tutor leading us to Christ,” which is literally what the Greek says (gegonen eis Xriston). The latter could be taken in any number of ways: leading us to learning about Christ, leading us to the time when Christ arrived—either in body, spirit, or the revelation of him. The King James Version, for example, translates: “The law was our schoolmaster to bring us unto Christ, that we might be justified by faith.”"

So what is Doherty saying? Since the coming of faith isn't the advent of Jesus, it makes no sense to say that the Law was our tutor until Christ came. Paul said it was our tutor until faith came. Therefore, this cannot be. 

"If God sending his Son in verse 4 is focused on the act—God’s act—of producing that transition from Law to freedom, and Paul locates this transition at the time of faith (which is to say of the response to his own and other apostles’ preaching), then the “sent” of verse 4 does not refer to any arrival of the Son on the earthly scene some decades earlier. Rather, the sending of verse 4 is the sending of the Son during the time of Paul, which can only mean through revelation into minds like his (“God revealed his son in me,” as he has said in 1:16), enabling him to bring knowledge of the Son to others (“in order that I might preach him among the nations”) and produce the “faith” within them which brings about that freedom from the Law and confers the status of “sons” upon them.^2"

The trouble is that Doherty fails to realize what practically all commentators have: the two are identical. The coming of faith is not the coming of faith in the believer's heart through Paul's gospel. The thought makes perfect sense if Paul views the coming of the faith as the advent of Christ. The two are identical in Paul's mind. The "coming faith" was revealed when Christ came. Why? because Christ's coming was the time when faith came as the means by which you were justified. Thus faith arrived (i.e was explicitly revealed-it's not like God changed His game plan) as the means through which you inherit God's promises, not in people's hearts (yet). Whenever Paul talks about a believer receiving Paul's Gospel, he always talks about it in terms of means. In other words, faith is seen as having an object (faith in Christ). Verse 25 is is telling: " But now that faith has come, we are no longer under a guardian, for in Christ Jesus you are all sons of God, through faith.

(Galatians 3:25-26 ESV)"

Paul is distinguishing the period where "faith has come" from "you are all sons of God through faith". How do I know this? If, in Paul's mind, the fact that "faith has come" represented the advent of faith in the believer's heart, Paul wouldn't have needed to reiterate that you "are all sons of God through faith". That point was already made; it would just be repetitive. It would be like saying "But now through faith, we are no longer under a guardian, for in Christ you are all sons of God through faith." 

So how does it make sense for Paul to identify "the coming of faith" with "the coming of Christ"? For Paul, the coming of Jesus is the coming of faith, because Jesus's work itself marked the transition from "law" to "faith". In other works, Jesus's work marks the arrival of faith as the means of justification. Here's another (even more decisive) exegetical point in my favor: So then, the law was our guardian until Christ came, in order that we might be justified by faith. (Galatians 3:24 ESV)

Christ came in order that we might be justified by faith. In other words, Christ's coming enables justification by faith. It cannot be identical to it-other wise Paul wouldn't have used a hina clause (an "in order that" clause, were the stuff after the "in order that" expresses purpose). 

Let's take a look at at his argument in Galatians 4, because this is where it really matters in terms of a historical Jesus.

"If we allow the thought of 3:23-25 to govern 4:4 (which it should, else Paul is contradicting himself), we arrive at this scenario. If God sending his Son in verse 4 is focused on the act—God’s act—of producing that transition from Law to freedom, and Paul locates this transition at the time of faith (which is to say of the response to his own and other apostles’ preaching), then the “sent” of verse 4 does not refer to any arrival of the Son on the earthly scene some decades earlier. Rather, the sending of verse 4 is the sending of the Son during the time of Paul, which can only mean through revelation into minds like his (“God revealed his son in me,” as he has said in 1:16), enabling him to bring knowledge of the Son to others (“in order that I might preach him among the nations”) and produce the “faith” within them which brings about that freedom from the Law and confers the status of “sons” upon them.^2"

So here's the logic:

1.) God sending His Son is God's act of producing the transition of the law to freedom in verse 4

2.) The transition is faith in Paul's gospel

3.) Conclusion: God sending His Son is when God produces faith in you (i.e reveals Christ so that you can spread the Gospel like Paul) through Paul's Gospel

In other words, God's act of "sending the Son" is at the time of faith. It's an ingenious argument, to be sure. The only problem is that it's completely wrong.

 " But when the fullness of time had come, God sent forth his Son, born of woman, born under the law, to redeem those who were under the law, so that we might receive adoption as sons.

(Galatians 4:4-5 ESV)"

Two things. For one, even if we take Doherty's view of "faith coming" has the birth of faith in the believer's heart, that STILL doesn't support his view of Galatians 4. Paul wouldn't be contradicting himself-that makes no sense to say that he would. If the sending of the Son is focused on God's act of sending the Son into the world as a necessary prerequisite to redeeming people, then it can easily be said that God sent His Son into the world to redeem people under the law.

Secondly, a hina clause is used here. That's a problem for Doherty's view. God "sent forth his Son...to (i.e in order to) redeem those who were under the law, so that (another hina clause) we might receive adoption as sons. If, in Paul's mind, God "sending forth his Son" was God's action of revealing Christ in the minds of those who were hearing Paul's Gospel (i.e transitioning people from the law to freedom...which is what redemption from the law is), then why would he say that the purpose of sending Christ was to redeem those under the law? Paul didn't identify redemption of those under the law with sending His Son-rather, it's God's goal in sending His Son. In other words, God sending the Son isn't identical to redemption from the law (i.e transitioning from law to freedom by revealing Christ in people's minds); rather, God's act of sending the Son enables the transition. So in Paul's mind, "redemption under the law" is achieved by the sending of the Son, but is not entailed by it. If (as Doherty agrees) the action of redeeming those who were under the law focuses on God, then it makes perfect sense to say God sent Christ in order for God to redeem those under the law. In His mind, sending Christ is a prerequisite for His action to redeem those under the law. If the sending of the Son was identical to transitioning someone from the law to freedom, then the phrase "to redeem those who were under the law" is completely superfluous. Paul, therefore, has those acts as distinct from each other; the sending of the Son is a necessary prerequisite to God's act of redeeming those under the law. It would be like me saying "I took the AP Calculus BC test in order to take Calc III."

Doherty's logic requires us to believe that the "coming of the faith" was the revelation of the Son in believers that produced the transition from law to freedom. But that's not what Paul is saying. The two actions are distinct in Paul's mind, with one action achieving the other. They're not identical. If they had been, Paul would have said God "sent forth His Son (i.e revealed him in your hearts to produce the transition from law to freedom) so that we might receive adoption as sons." Unfortunately for mythers, that's not what Paul said.

Nor does Paul explicitly say this in verse 6 of Galatians 4. He doesn't say He sent Christ AS the Spirit. The Spirit and Christ are numerically distinct in Paul (1 Corinthians 12-one God, one Lord, one Spirit). Rather, the Spirit operates in perfect unity with Christ. Paul was a thoroughgoing trinitarian. Richard Baukham has done excellent work demonstrating this. The Spirit's work is never independent of God or Christ. Thus, the Spirit is both the Spirit of God and the Spirit of Christ (Romans 8), because the Spirit shares the same being with both.

"The “now that faith has come” (3:25) is Paul focusing on himself and his own time. (Referring to a past “faith” that was in response to Jesus’ historical death and resurrection would have been too oblique; any reference to the past would have been to the saving events themselves.)"

This is also problematic. As I've said before, the time when "faith has come" refers to faith as the means of justification. It refers to the time when faith, not the law, is revealed as means through which you are justified-it's not talking about justification itself. Jesus's saving events are entailed in "now that faith has come", because it's His work that makes it possible for "faith" to arrive as the means by which you are counted righteous in God's sight. 

"Even though the epistle of Titus, one of the Pastorals, was written probably half a century later, it still preserves much of Paul’s thought. In its opening verses, the writer, presenting himself as Paul, has this to say:

2  …the hope of eternal life which God, who does not lie, promised
before the beginning of time [pro chronōn aiōniōn],
3  and now at the proper time [kairois idiois] he has revealed his word
[NEB: openly declared himself] through the preaching entrusted to me
[i.e., Paul] by the command of God our Savior.

Thus the “proper time,” an idea equivalent to Galatians’ “fullness of time,” is indeed the time of revelation and preaching by Paul. "

Two totally different contexts. The logic doesn't work. There is no necessary exegetical connection between these verses and the verses in Galatians. Then Doherty tries to argue that "born of woman" and "born under the law" is an interpolation. Keep in mind that not ONE manuscript lack these phrases. But here's his reason for why that is: 

"In what way would being born of woman and born under the Law be items worthy of highlighting as important in this context? It would go without saying that if Jesus had lived on earth and been crucified as a human being on Calvary, then he was “born of woman.” That would hardly contribute anything to the primary act or strengthen it; it would be merely gratuitous and redundant. In fact, since orthodox interpretation of the passage assumes that the sending of verse 4 already means the life of Christ and his saving act of death and resurrection, Paul would have no reason to say that he was “born of woman.” Thus the presence of the phrase provides a justification for suggesting interpolation."

This is bizarre. The phrase "born of woman" is meant to emphasize Jesus's humanity-because according to Paul, Jesus wasn't merely human. By saying God "sent His Son, born of woman" emphasizes His humanity, which is instrumental in God's act of redemption. The sending of Jesus is primarily focused on Him being sent into the world-no one has ever said the sending of Jesus means His life death and resurrection. The phrase "God sent His Son" means that God sent His Son into the world-THAT'S been the orthodox interpretation. Thus, the phrase "born of woman" isn't pointless, but rather describes how God sent Jesus (i.e the manner in which Jesus was sent into the world): born of woman (incarnate human!), born under/subject to the law (i.e as a Jew, since only Jews were subject to the Law). This actually fits well with the flow of Paul's thought. Jesus's incarnation enables redemption from the law. He then tries to argue that being "born under the law" is likely an interpolation too because it has no role in saving us. Galatians 4 is supposed to be about freedom from the law-so in what sense would being born under the law help? Paul specifies that elsewhere: 

"For all who rely on works of the law are under a curse; for it is written, “Cursed be everyone who does not abide by all things written in the Book of the Law, and do them.” Now it is evident that no one is justified before God by the law, for “The righteous shall live by faith.” But the law is not of faith, rather “The one who does them shall live by them.” Christ redeemed us from the curse of the law by becoming a curse for us—for it is written, “Cursed is everyone who is hanged on a tree”—so that in Christ Jesus the blessing of Abraham might come to the Gentiles, so that we might receive the promised Spirit through faith." (Galatians 3:10-14 ESV)

When Paul says "the curse of the law", he's not calling the law a curse. Contra Doherty, he has a positive view of the law (Romans 7-"the laws not a bad thing, it's just that people suck" my translation). Rather, he's saying Christ redeemed us from the law's curse, which applied to everyone (since everyone has failed to keep God's law). Jesus redeems us from the law's curse by becoming it. Jesus being "hanged on a tree" confirms that He is under the curse of God. The only way he could become the law's curse-the only way He himself could take it on Himself and suffer through it-was if He was under it. Otherwise, if the law didn't apply to Jesus, he never would have been able to become the curse. However, if the law applied to Jesus as well, and if Jesus took on the sins of the world, then He was counted as one "who does not abide by all things of the law". He took our penalty.

Much much more can be said on this-specifically on the topic of imputation. Jesus's obedience to the law is credited to our account. But I think the point made above is enough to refute Doherty. 

"But the phrases are best accounted for as intended not so much to express the accompaniments of the sending as directly to characterize the Son, describing the relation to humanity and the law in which he performed his mission.”

For those phrases, Burton is not ruling out the understanding of a temporal relationship to the verb, but he is saying that it is not grammatically necessary. Yet if they can be seen as not qualifying the sending, this further frees the ‘sent’ thought in verse 4 from having to be a reference to the arrival in the world of the incarnated Christ in a human body."

This is shocking to me. Burton says exactly what Doherty doesn't. He's not saying that a temporal relationship to the verb is not necessary. He's saying that "born of woman" and "born under the law" describe Christ Himself. It describes the manner in which Christ was sent under which he "performed his mission". That undercuts Doherty's whole point! It doesn't free verse 4 of a reference to the arrival of Christ. It necessitates it. No heavenly figure was ever "born under the law"-that's nonsense. There's not one example of that in extant Jewish literature. Not one. 

"This is a passage which, despite its context clearly linking the woman and her child with the time of the prophet, was widely regarded as prophetic of the Messiah. If Paul felt compelled to interpret this as a reference to his spiritual Christ, he would not have refrained from stating it (even if he didn’t understand how it could be that the spiritual Christ could be “born of woman”). Perhaps he simply assigned it to the world of myth and God’s “mysteries”—which were unfathomable anyway, and had to be accepted on the basis of scriptural revelation; just as he accepted that the spiritual Christ was of David’s stock because scripture said so. "

Again. Words fail me. When did "born of woman" ever mean something other than "born of woman"? And when does Paul use the phrase "mysteries of God" in reference to anything other than God's salvation achieved in Christ's work? He doesn't. I will address the idea that the "spiritual Christ was of David's stock (sperm)" too. No kidding-these people, Carrier, Price, Doherty-all think that Paul thought God took a sperm of David and created Jesus out of it. 

"As a final consideration on whether Paul was likely to have written “born under the Law,” we ought to examine his attitude about what being under the Law meant to him in the first place. To his way of thinking, it was entirely a negative condition, useless for salvation, an enabler of sin. God needed to free believers from it. “No human being can be justified in the sight of God for having kept the Law: Law brings only the consciousness of sin,” Paul says in Romans 3:20. Would it not have occurred to him, or to his readers, to wonder how Jesus, if he was born under Law, was exempt from this terrible fate? Would not the two statements, Romans 3:20 and Galatians 4:4, constitute something of a contradiction—at the least requiring clarification? The very fact of the inclusion of “born under the Law” in Galatians 4:4 implies that Christ was in fact a subject of the Law and therefore a prey to all its impediment"

So this is the last bit I will be addressing. You can see the flaws yourself for the rest of the article. Doherty says "would it not have occurred to him how if Jesus was born under the law, it would not have exempted Him from this terrible fate?" (i.e being conscious of one's own sin) Doherty makes a similar point in Romans 7-that if the law aroused Paul's sinfulness, why didn't it do it for Jesus if Jesus was truly under the law? This is also bizarre. In Romans 8, Paul explains why: Jesus was born in the likeness of sinful flesh. Sarx, in Romans 8, is a clear reference to human nature (which Paul views as depraved). Mythicists like him try to take this to mean that Jesus was like a human but wasn't. However, that's not at all what Paul is saying. He's not saying that Jesus wasn't human-rather, Jesus wasn't sinful. Thus, Jesus's passions weren't arouses because He wasn't sinful. For Paul, it was "sin in him" producing death. 

" Did that which is good, then, bring death to me? By no means! It was sin, producing death in me through what is good, in order that sin might be shown to be sin, and through the commandment might become sinful beyond measure. For we know that the law is spiritual, but I am of the flesh, sold under sin.

(Romans 7:13-14 ESV)"

The law was good, but sin in Paul produced death. He says "I am of the flesh"-his sinful, corrupt humanity. Thus, because Jesus was sent in the likeness of sinful flesh, He didn't have a sinful nature. Thus the law had no such effect on Him. He is the new Adam-and unlike Adam, Jesus obeyed God. 

"Here we have an identical situation to that which I have pointed out in regard to Paul’s concept of “living kata sarka.” If living in the flesh, as Paul so consistently emphasizes, is full of corruption, temptation, sin, contrariness to God, even ‘death’ (figuratively speaking), the question had to arise as to how an historical Jesus who ‘lived in the flesh’ was not a party to all this. "

This is where mythers CONSISTENTLY get the point wrong. Sarx, the vast majority of time Paul uses it, refer to the sinful human nature. Jesus had a human nature, but not a sinful one. He had a soma, but not sarx. Hence, He was sent in the likeness of sarx-He resembled us in that He was human. He was a man (anthropos) according to Romans 5. But He wasn't a sinful man. 

"“But as for you—you may bear the name of Jew; you rely upon the law and are proud [lit., you boast] of your God; you know his will; you are aware of moral distinctions because you receive instruction from the law; you are confident [lit., have convinced yourself] that you are the one to guide the blind, to enlighten the benighted, to train the stupid, and to teach the immature, because in the law you see the very shape of knowledge and truth. You, then, who teach your fellow-man, do you fail to teach yourself? You proclaim, ‘Do not steal’; but are you yourself a thief? You say, ‘Do not commit adultery’; but are you an adulterer? You abominate false gods; but do you rob their shrines? While you take pride in the law, you dishonor God by breaking it. For, as Scripture says, ‘Because of you the name of God is dishonored among the Gentiles’.”

The tone of the whole passage is critical. Paul is almost sneering at those he is addressing, those Jews under the Law. If the spirit of an historical Jesus werestanding at Paul’s side, he would be cringing, waiting for Paul to make the obvious exception for himself. (“Surely he’s not including Me in all that sarcasm about Jews who, having knowledge in the Law and being teachers, do not practice what they preach? Have I dishonored God by breaking the Law? Is he saying that because of Me ‘the name of God is dishonored among the gentiles’? Surely not!”)"

Oh boy. This is the level of exegesis you should expect from mythers and their ranks. Paul is being critical of the Jews not simply because they were under the law, but because they broke the law. He's bashing them not for relying on the law, but for relying on the law while at the same time breaking it. Obviously Paul thinks that Jesus didn't break the law. That goes without saying. 

"There is not a word anywhere from Paul about how Jesus the teacher behaved while being “born under (or subject to) the Law.” Moreover, with Jesus supposedly looming in the background, he could have been brought forward by Paul to illustrate how this particular Jew “instructed in the Law” had shown how to properly behave even in such circumstances and not dishonor the profession and the name of God."

Except there is a word about how Jesus behaved while being subject to the law. "He who knew no sin became sin, so that in Him we might become the righteousness of God." 2 Corinthians 5:21

Paul's whole thinking presupposes the fact that Jesus obeyed God perfectly (Romans 5) and was obedient to the point of death (Philippians 2). 

I've yet to see mythicists address the "offspring of Abraham" problem in Galatians 3 as well. My guess is that they will talk about how those who have faith in Christ are referred to as offspring of Abraham. This won't do however. We are called offspring of Abraham in Christ. What's true of Him becomes true of His people ("I have been crucified with Christ...united to Christ in a death like His, etc"). So Jesus's status is conferred on those who believe. The trouble is that the promise to Abraham was this: through you the nations shall be blessed. God proceeds to make the nation of Israel out of Abraham. So the promise, then, involved genealogical descent. Paul says that Jesus is the fulfillment of this promise-the one to whom the promise had been made (that through your offspring-Jesus-the families of the earth would be blessed). So Jesus could only fulfill the promise made to Abraham (through your offspring the nations of the earth will be blessed) if he was Abraham's offspring. Otherwise, if Jesus wasn't descended from Abraham, how is it that Paul can view Jesus as the One who inherits the promise ("through you the nations of the Earth shall be blessed)? How does God bless the nations through Abraham if Jesus wasn't Abraham's descendant? We're not told.

This is why mythicists will forever remain in their own, isolated little camp, demanding to be heard yet being taken seriously by no one. Why? Because of pseudo-scholarship like this. 

Atheism Destroys Morality

Dang. That was an offensive title. I'm going to get so much flame for that. 

So what do I mean? Let me be clear. I'm not suggesting that all atheists are immoral people. There are plenty of likeable secular humanists out there. Just look at Joel Osteen! 

What I'm arguing is this: atheism, if carried to it's logical conclusion, destroys the foundation for morality. That is, moral nihilism-the belief that there is no right and wrong-is the logical conclusion of atheism. Before I continue, I strongly suggest you watch this video to understand the argument. If you do not view this video, methinks that you won't understand the argument. 

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ewTj1dzTdDg

Meaning of the word "Objective"
I will be using "objective" to describe "that which exists independently of the human mind". So, for example, the fact that my body is 6 feet tall is an objective fact. It is true independent of human subjectivity. It's part of the "third-person" perspective on reality. To give another example, think of the sun. The objective facts concerning the sun-it's physical composition for example-are true independent of the human mind. (And for all you smart-butts out there, no, this does not conflict with idealism. Key word: human mind. For the rest of you who have no idea what idealism is, smile and nod. Or click on my blog post from November on consciousness. #shamelessselfpromotion) 

Objective Morality
So objective moral facts are moral facts that are true independent of the human mind. What the monkey butt? Here's how that works. For example, take murder. Objective morality allows you to say that the murder is wrong to think he's right. Why does that matter? Only through an objective moral framework can you say that. Think about it. When you attempt to draw a straight line, in order to determine if that line is actually straight or not, you have to compare it against an objective standard of what a straight line is. You have to compare it to the objective "straightness" as it were. If you are to say that someone else's moral worldview is more perverse than your own (for example, Stalin's), you have to say that yours more closely conforms to an objective standard. Or if you think we've made moral progress (Civil Rights), your saying that our societal norms today are better than they were 60 years ago in that regard. I'd definitely affirm that (with respect to Civil Rights at least). I think there are right and wrong answers to the question of morality. 

Moral Relativism
What is moral relativism? Well, let's think about ice-cream for a second. Suppose my brother George likes chocolate ice-cream. It's brown, he's brown. It fits. Plus, George just likes the flavor a ton. I don't think anyone in their right mind would ever say that George is wrong to like chocolate ice cream. You may have a different preference, and George's preference wouldn't align with yours. But he isn't wrong to like chocolate ice-cream. If you called his choice "dumb" or if you said he was "wrong", you would either be joking, or you wouldn't be using wrong in the normal sense of the word. You'd be using it to describe the fact that George's preference is different than yours. Why is it that George isn't wrong when you have a different preference? Because there is no objectively "best" ice-cream flavor. Ice-cream preferences are totally subjective, and totally relative because there is no objective standard. 

Moral relativism says morality reduces to a matter of preference. You have your moral worldview, and Stalin has his. Neither moral worldview is more right than the other. You can beat the crap out of the other guy all you want-that doesn't make your moral worldview better. So here's the fun part. 

Atheism Implies Moral Relativism
Let's assume there is no God. Take a birds-eye view of the human race. If we think about morality, then the sense of morality would be purely a product of human minds. They wouldn't have any sort of existence outside of human minds-rather, they'd be creations of the human race. From this birdseye perspective, let's consider all people. You would see a bunch of different ideas of right and wrong depending on the person. However, in the absence of God, there is no objective standard by which to measure these ideas of right and wrong. The universe doesn't care about what happens on the planet. Platonism in and of itself certainly doesn't make a lick of sense (I've never seen an atheist with the gall to affirm that some abstract form of "goodness" exists out there...even I don't know what the heck that means...). Think about ice-cream flavors again. Preferences of ice cream flavors are purely relative precisely because there is no objective standard. If there is no objective standard for morality, then the same follows: you have just as much of a basis to condemn someone else's moral worldview as I do to condemn your preference of ice cream. There is nothing that makes your ideas of good and evil more or less valid than another persons. That means if a murder thinks he ought to murder people because it gives him pleasure, he has no better or worse of a moral worldview than your own. He just has a different preference. 

Objections Considered:
Literally. It's 1AM (not figuratively. Literally). Here's a video I made months ago dealing with some objections: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=7m8n1d3Yu9g&list=PLKG-HUiN5dvtzp3WlK-XwDAU93BzxbdRq&index=4

Practical Implications
Ok, so let's take the one of the worst case scenario. If you see a murderer murdering people, why ought he not murder people? He's just doing what he thinks is right. What makes your view of right and wrong more valid than his? And if you say, with Sam Harris, that it produces human flourishing, what if the murderer doesn't care about human flourishing? In fact, see the video above. 

The trouble is that if you're a consistent atheist, you'll have to deny that "right" and "wrong" actually exist, since both are objective terms. Morality, rather, reduces to a matter of preference. So...why should you oppose him? On what grounds do you condemn his actions? After all, he's not doing anything actually wrong. His preference is just different than yours, not more or less good. Suppose we say "well, it makes me feel good to punch rapists and murderers in the face and put them in jail." Well and good-the problem is that the evildoer in question is operating under the exact same principle. So you're condemning him for acting under the very same operating principle you are: self-pleasure. 

This is the problem. Condemning someone else's actions becomes either hypocritical, or just flat out impossible. Moral progress is also impossible. On moral relativism (and therefore, on atheism), the Civil Rights movement wasn't an improvement from ante-bellum slavery. Why? Because both groups just had a different preference of right and wrong. No one group in history had a better sense of morality, as that would assume an objective standard. Given moral relativism (given atheism), there is no objective standard. Again, moral choices reduce to a matter of subjective preference. Moral judgments become impossible-and I think this is too high of a price to pay. 

Bonus: Why Morality is Objective, and why Morality implies God's existence
If you agree that that's way too high of a price to pay, see here for why Morality is objective: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=XVw24cKPdH4&index=5&list=PLKG-HUiN5dvtzp3WlK-XwDAU93BzxbdRq

And this is why it implies the existence of God. Let's look at the premises leading to the conclusion of moral relativism. 

P1.) If there is no God, there is no objective standard of right and wrong. 
P2) There is no God.
C1) Therefore, there is no objective standard of right and wrong. 

The logic is impeccable. The conclusion follows inescapably given the truth of the two premises. The only question is: are the two premises true? I think we can all agree that the conclusion is a false. One-it's absurd to think that Stalin's sense of morality was no more right or wrong than Mother Teresa or *insert exemplar human here*. And for those who don't, see the video link on why morality is objective (above). I've given reasons to justify P1. In fact, the reasons I gave are why most atheistic philosophers are also moral nihilists and deny the existence of right and wrong. So P1) is true. However, the Conclusion is false (I think we can safely say that moral nihilism/moral relativism is false). And as I've said earlier, the only way for the conclusion to fail is if there's something wrong with one of the two premises (since the conclusion follows inescapably from the two premises). That leaves Premise 2; premise 2 must be false. Therefore, God exists, and is Himself the objective standard of good, by which all other standards must be measured. 

Bonus #2: Euthyphro Dilemma considered and Refuted
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=qq-LYeAuhTE&feature=autoshare

Why I am a Calvinist

For anyone interested, this is my theological position. I hold to something called "Reformed Theology" (aka Calvinism). In this post, I aim to argue that the five-points are true for some of my apologist friends. 

TULIP
Total Depravity
Unconditional election
Limited (Definitive) Atonement
Irresistible Grace
Perseverance of the Saints

Total Depravity
Total Depravity argues that (surprise) mankind is totally depraved. That is, man is completely unable to come to God of his own volition at all. Were man given the opportunity, we'd spit in God's face and curse Him. " For those who live according to the flesh set their minds on the things of the flesh, but those who live according to the Spirit set their minds on the things of the Spirit. For to set the mind on the flesh is death, but to set the mind on the Spirit is life and peace. For the mind that is set on the flesh is hostile to God, for it does not submit to God's law; indeed, it cannot. Those who are in the flesh cannot please God.
You, however, are not in the flesh but in the Spirit, if in fact the Spirit of God dwells in you. Anyone who does not have the Spirit of Christ does not belong to him. (Romans 8:5-9 ESV)"

Note the flow of thought. The mind set on the flesh cannot please God. So if you imagine a set of people named "in the flesh", who belongs to this set? "You, however, are not in the flesh but in the Spirit, if in fact the Spirit of God dwells in you." So the people who belong to that set are those who do not have the Spirit of God. Aka those who do not belong to Christ. Thus, there are only two categories of people in the world: in the flesh or "belonging to Christ". Those who are in the former do not AND cannot submit to God's law. To be sure, this capability isn't a corruption of rational faculties. We have all the rational/physical faculties we need to choose God. It's one of desire.

Suppose I push Stephen Hawking to the ground. I cannot command him to get up, because he's physically incapable. However, suppose we encounter a dude who just loves floors so much. His love for the floor is such that he doesn't want to get up. We can hold that guy accountable. So it is with sin. Sin is a corruption of our desires-we are so thoroughly corrupt, that though we have everything we need physically to choose God and live, we will not because we want everything but God. This is the plight of mankind.

Unconditional Election

This deserves a whole exegesis of Romans 9, but I'll keep it brief (that's not our only text for this anyway). We believe that mankind freely wills his own rebellion. However, this is the only thing he can freely will-not because he's physically incapable of willing otherwise, but because sin is the only thing we want to freely will apart from God's grace. Thus, God would be just in damning us all. However, before the foundation of the world, God chose to save some (not all) from their rebellion, and chose to pass over others. The language is key here. God does not Himself produce evil in anyone. Rather, He gives man over to his own sinful desires. Thus, God predestines some to eternal life and predestines some to damnation. This isn't a symmetrical action, however. In the former, God chooses to actively cause people to believe. He chooses to regenerate their hearts. God does not do this based off of anything good He sees in the elect. I wasn't saved because I was somehow better-but I was saved according to God's grace, and according to God's purposes. It had nothing to do with my own merits. In the latter, God simply permits the non-elect to engage in their own freely willed rebellion. God doesn't damn them because they are MORE deserving of it than the elect-all people deserve to be damned to hell. God passes over them according to His Sovereign purposes. It's just because everyone deserves hell in the first place anyway. 

I'll mention a few brief notes on Romans 9 (I'll deal with that at length another time). The first view verses of Romans 9 are clearly talking about salvation ("I could wish that I myself were cut off and accursed"). Romans 9 talks about how God's promises to Israel have not failed. Why? Because "not everyone who belongs to Israel is Israel." The Gospel went out and saved everyone God intended it to save. This is reflected in God's choice to include Jacob in the promise and not Esau. Ultimately, God chooses "not based off of human will or works", but off of His sovereign mercy. Here are the other verses: 

If you know that he is righteous, you may be sure that everyone who practices righteousness has been born of him. (1 John 2:29 ESV)

Everyone who believes that Jesus is the Christ has been born of God, and everyone who loves the Father loves whoever has been born of him. (1 John 5:1 ESV)

This is key. Note the flow of thought. In 1 John 2, John isn't saying that practicing righteousness causes you to be born of God. Rather, it's evidence of it (has been born). Likewise, the grammatical parallel is 1 John 5. Believing evidences being born of God. That means that being born of God precedes belief, just as being born of God precedes practicing righteousness. As a Calvinist, I believe that the moment God regenerates your heart, you believe. However, regeneration is the logical foundation of belief. We all know causes and effects can be simultaneous (just think a ball weighing down a cushion from eternity). However, the ball logically, not temporally, precedes its effect. That is, the ball's weight is the cause of the impression on the cushion. Likewise, the Holy Spirit's work of regeneration, while temporally co-extensive with the effect, is logically prior to believing. That means the Spirit's work brings about new birth which brings about belief, not the other way around.

Regeneration (the Holy Spirit's work of giving us a new heart) --> born of God --> belief.

There's more. John 6:37 teaches that "all that the Father give will come, and those who come [Jesus] will never cast out." There is a chain that goes on here.

Those who the Father gives comes --> those who come Jesus never casts out.

John 6:44, Ephesians 1 (God predestined us for adoption before the foundation of the world), and a bunch of other texts could be placed here. I'll address one more.

" Jesus answered them, “I told you, and you do not believe. The works that I do in my Father's name bear witness about me, but you do not believe because you are not among my sheep. My sheep hear my voice, and I know them, and they follow me. I give them eternal life, and they will never perish, and no one will snatch them out of my hand. My Father, who has given them to me, is greater than all, and no one is able to snatch them out of the Father's hand. I and the Father are one.”

(John 10:25-30 ESV)"

Note: "oneness" here denotes one in being and power, not "same Person". But that aside, Jesus says "you do not believe because you are not among my sheep." Again, note the flow of thought. He doesn't say "you are not among my sheep because you do not believe", but rather, "you do not believe because you are not among my sheep." Jesus knows His sheep-the Pharisees weren't part of the flock. That was the reason they didn't believe. And the Father is the one who gives the sheep (who, as we've seen, are not the set of all people in the world).

Limited (Definitive) Atonement

I don't like the the word "limited" atonement. I don't really think that's a good way of putting it. Everyone believes the atonement is limited in some sense (namely, in it's application). This doctrine is saying something more...but TUDIP would've been awkward.

Definitive atonement asks the question "for whom did Jesus die?" Yes, I believe that Jesus made salvation possible for every single person on the planet. I really do. However, did Jesus have a particular people who He was going to definitively secure in His death and Resurrection? Absolutely. Jesus, while making salvation possible for all, also secured His elect people.

What then shall we say to these things? If God is for us, who can be against us? He who did not spare his own Son but gave him up for us all, how will he not also with him graciously give us all things? Who shall bring any charge against God's elect? It is God who justifies. (Romans 8:31-33 ESV)

Who is the us in the context? The elect. How do I know that? Note the flow of thought. "He who did not spare his own Son, but gave him up for us all, how will he not also with him graciously give us all things? Who shall bring a charge against God's elect?" The "us" in context must be the elect, because the only way you inherit the benefits of being in Christ (i.e the only way you will be "graciously given all things") is if you belong to the elect (i.e if all charges of your sinful past are removed-who shall bring a charge against God's elect?).

The thief comes only to steal and kill and destroy. I came that they may have life and have it abundantly. I am the good shepherd. The good shepherd lays down his life for the sheep. (John 10:10-11 ESV)

He lays down His life for the sheep. And as we've seen, Jesus knows who His sheep are. That's not to say He doesn't make salvation possible for all. I truly believe He does. But that is to say that Jesus also secures the salvation of His elect. Thus, He definitively accomplishes something in His death, rather than just offering a potentiality to the world.

Irresistible Grace

Perhaps the 1 John texts would've gone better here. There is strong overlap. This doctrine, contrary to William Lane Craig, does not say you can never resist the grace of God. Rather, it says that when God so chooses, He can regenerate your heart and cause you to believe. He can (and will), when He chooses to, overwhelm and overcome the deadness of the human spirit and revive it with new life in Christ. His call is irresistible-because of the power of God's saving grace, those who are called cannot resist but to come. Again, the 1 John texts would've been nice. But also, see this text: And those whom he predestined he also called, and those whom he called he also justified, and those whom he justified he also glorified.

(Romans 8:30 ESV)

Again, note the flow of thought. All of those Predestined are --> called --> justified --> glorified. The chain cannot be broken.

Perseverance of the Saints

Romans 8:30 could go here. Philippians 1:6 also belongs here-he who began a good work in you will see it through to completion. God starts the work, and finishes. Note, this is not "once saved always saved." In other words, it doesn't mean that you can believe in the Lord and then live like the devil. Those who are in Christ fight sin! (Romans 8) The evidence of being born of God is that you pursue Jesus. But what it does mean is that I can have confidence that I will grow in my conformity to Christ, and that God will bring me through to salvation. I can be confident that God will be faithful to me to complete what He started in me. That doesn't mean I don't work-oh, there is a good deal of fighting and effort and Spirit-empowered striving after God. But that's the key: the Holy Spirit is the one who drives the whole Christian life.

Therefore, my beloved, as you have always obeyed, so now, not only as in my presence but much more in my absence, work out your own salvation with fear and trembling, for it is God who works in you, both to will and to work for his good pleasure. (Philippians 2:12-13 ESV)

I am a Calvinist because it's Biblical. I love the sovereign, merciful, gracious Lord of all!

How to Get Saved

What do Christians believe about salvation? Well, here it is. 

God
We believe that there is one, good, sovereign God. This God exists as one being in three Persons. What does that mean? The word "being" denotes what I am. That is, I am a human being. The word "Person" denotes who I am-my center of consciousness. My own individual self. So within the One being of God-His one mind-there are three centers of consciousness (i.e three Persons). One God who exists as Father, Son, and Spirit. (See my Mind-Model post on the Trinity for more on this) And this sovereign God existed in a state of perfect delight. Out of the overflow of His heart, not because of any deficiency in Him, He created the world. 

Original Sin
We believe that when God created the world, it was good (Genesis 1). He created waterfalls, and elephants, and rainbows, and He knows what else. He saw it all and said it was good. And God created man in His image. This image wasn't a physical image-God isn't like anything in creation. Rather, it's a vocational term. Man was created to reflect God back into this world. We were meant to participate in stewarding creation with Him-to reflect His tenderness and His goodness into this world. Yet man, being endowed the freedom to love their Creator, abused that freedom to rebel against God. This original sin resulted in the corruption of man's nature, and the corruption of creation. 

When we look around us, we know something is fundamentally jacked up. Our own hearts have deep, deep darkness that few of us are wont to admit. Yet pretending that darkness isn't there will not change it. It doesn't take too much honest introspection to realize that we are not exactly great people. In fact, the heart of man is dark. We believe this darkness can be traced right back to our choice in Adam to rebel against our Creator. 

And thus, death ensued. Whereas Adam and Eve lived in the loving protection and sustenance of their Father, they now separated themselves from God via their sin. Whereas the Giver of Life would have given them life forever, they rejected that free gift for the sake of being the gods of their own lives. This is their story...and in turn, our story. This is the plight of the human race. 

Total Depravity
We believe that as man multiplied, he spiraled deeper in his depravity. See, Adam was our "Federal Head" before God. That means that Adam was the representative of the human race. Adam was chosen to perfectly represent and embody the will of his constituency-his descendants-such that his choice to rebel was humanity's choice to rebel. That Fall from perfection is evidenced by our individual choices to do evil everyday. Murder became genocide, lust became rape, disobedience became scheming, and life became death. Man was dead to God, and in turn, dead to each other. If we're honest with ourselves, we know that there are people we hate for being better than us in some way. There are times when we get pleasure out of doing evil-when we yield to that unyielding darkness that infects our entire being. As man multiplied on the face of the Earth, so did our evil. The darkness of our hearts covered the face of the Earth. 

A Promise
Yet God was not done with mankind. Yes, God is just. Yes, God must judge crime. But He had a plan that would satisfy the demands of justice, and show His boundless love. God called a man out of idolatry named Abraham, and made a promise. Through Abraham, all the families of the Earth would be blessed. Abraham had no idea what that promise entailed. Out of Abraham, God built a nation for Himself: Israel. This nation was to be a light in a world of darkness...however, the people of Israel often rebelled against God. Rather then being the light they were called to be, they caved to their own darkness. Yet God put up with them. God extended countless pleas to return, even though they burned their children in sacrifice to false gods, and engaged in horrible evils that defiled God's image in them. Israel's story is a microcosm of the story of humanity. Israel reflects the story of a race of creatures who, though they are ruled by a patient Creator, show steadfast hate and evil. And though mankind engaged in all sorts of evil, God delayed judgment. 

God was intent on fulfilling His promise. 

The Son of God
As I mentioned before, God existed as a Trinity. God exists as God the Father, God the Son, God the Holy Spirit. These Persons, while distinct, exist as one Divine Being. They are not parts of God, they are each fully God. (Again, see my "Mind-Model" post on the Trinity) God sent His Son into the world-the one through whom He made all things. We believe Jesus is God the Son. That is, Jesus fully shares the Divine nature. Thus, in Jesus, the Creator-the one through whom all things were made-entered into the world. Jesus, conceived from the womb of the Virgin Mary, is God's Son. When God the Father sees Jesus, He sees His own perfections-the fullness of His own being-reflected back to Him. God's love for the Son, therefore, is limitless. 

Why send Jesus? "For God so loved the world, that He gave His only Son, that whosoever believes shall not perish, but have eternal life." (John 3:16) 

The Gospel
We believe that Jesus Christ lived a perfect life. He healed the sick, gave sight to the blind, fed the hungry. All of that was part of this central proclamation: in Jesus, God was making all things new. God is doing away with sickness and disease. God is doing away with death. 

The fundamental plight of man-the one disease that wrought all other disease-is sin. Sin corrupted our hearts and the creation. In Jesus, God is putting that to rights. 

We believe that Jesus obeyed God's will perfectly. We believe that, "though He was in the form of God, did not count equality with God a thing to be exploited for His own benefit, but made Himself of no repute, taking on the form of a servant, being born in the likeness of men. And being found in human form, he humbled himself to the point of death, even death on a Cross." (Philippians 2) Why did Jesus have to die?

See, God is Just. A Judge cannot look at a rapist and let the rapist go off scott-free. That would be unjust! So Jesus, in an act of amazing love, willingly chose to pay the penalty we incurred on ourselves. He chose to take on the sins of the world on Himself, and bear the wrath of God for them. And Jesus completely absorbed the wrath of God on behalf of His people, that all those who believe in Him would be reconciled to God.

This is the light that was revealed at Christmas. Though we were so far lost in our own darkness, God made a way so people could return to Him. Jesus, upon taking the sin of His people and being crushed under the weight of God's just and holy wrath, died. And three days later, He rose from the dead. Why? Because Jesus had destroyed death. Death had no hold over the Son of God. Since Jesus dealt with sin, He dealt with death-for "the wages of sin is death" (Romans 6:23). The Lord Jesus did this so that you could know Him.

See, the one thing standing between man and God is sin. Yet the Cross bridges that infinite chasm. Jesus removes that obstacle by bearing our penalty and paying with His life. And He crushes death by absorbing sin onto Himself, dying (thereby destroying sin and death), and rising from the dead. 

Jesus rose so that all those who have faith in Him would live, and one day be raised from the dead too. What is faith? Faith isn't just assent to propositions. Faith is child-like dependence on the One who you know is TOTALLY dependable! Faith is the embrace of all that God is for you in Christ-Savior, Redeemer, friend, King-and banking on Him. As Martin Luther said: "Faith is a living, bold trust in God’s grace, so certain of God’s favor that it would risk death a thousand times trusting in it. Such confidence and knowledge of God’s grace makes you happy, joyful and bold in your relationship to God and all creatures. The Holy Spirit makes this happen through faith. Because of it, you freely, willingly and joyfully do good to everyone, serve everyone, suffer all kinds of things, love and praise the God who has shown you such grace. "

When you embrace Jesus, you are united to Him such that God sees Jesus's obedience as your own. On the basis of what Jesus has done-on that basis alone!-you are counted perfectly righteous in God's sight. In God's courtroom, you are declared perfect solely because Jesus is perfect. Jesus's perfection is imputed (i.e credited) to your account. And when you embrace Jesus Christ, God puts His Holy Spirit in you to transform you. And the Spirit is your personal guarantee that one day, you will inherit new life through Jesus.

See, the Gospel isn't about dying and going to heaven. God is making all things new. The Cross is the point at which heaven and earth, God and man, wrath and love all kiss. The fruit is the renewal of all things. The Cross is the beginning of new creation. When Jesus rose from the dead, He prefigured what will happen to everyone who trusts Him, and to the whole creation. There will be no more decay, no more sorrow, or no more pain. There will be infinite joy in the kingdom of an infinitely lovely God.

The best part of it all is this: you can know the One who made you. That doesn't sound like a lot at first. But consider who God is. Look at the stars in the sky, and think of every blade of grass. Think of the sea, and all the creatures of the deep. Think of the whole cosmos. God created those by simply thinking them into existence. Think of all good things-they flow from God Himself. When you enter into a relationship with your Creator, you find a love so sweet that you will spend nights crying for joy! You find a King so real that you can bet your life on Him a thousand times over. 

You can know the God of the seas and the stars and the galaxy! You can know the sovereign God! You can know the One who loves you so much, that He'd take your place, die on your behalf, and give you new life! You can know God! So the question is this: will you? Will you go on the craziest, most joyful ride of your life? Will you embrace the One who is all-satisfying? Will you embrace the King who loves you? Will you die to yourself, that you might live forever? 

Those are questions you have to ask yourself. They cannot be put off. If you answer yes to them, then here is what you must do to be saved.

How to Get Saved
Look at your own heart. Be honest with yourself! Stare your own darkness straight in the face and do not sugar coat it. Confess your sin before God. Pray something along the lines of this (note: these words will not magically save you. The heart behind it-yielding to Jesus as Lord and Savior-will. Therefore, this is a suggestion/a template): 

"Lord, I know I am a sinner. I know I have violated your law. I have tried to be the god of my own life, and it has failed. Lord, I confess my sinfulness before you. I confess that I am broken. And I repent of it all. I turn away from my own efforts, and my own sin-I turn away from everything that I am and I cast myself at your feet! I cannot save myself. I cannot know you by my own effort. So Lord, I embrace your love for me you showed at the Cross. I surrender my life to Jesus Christ, and I trust Him. Thank you for your boundless love and amazing grace!" 

What must you do to be saved? There are no works that can save you, nor is there a magic sequence of words. No, this is what you must do:  But what does it say? “The word is near you, in your mouth and in your heart” (that is, the word of faith that we proclaim); because, if you confess with your mouth that Jesus is Lord and believe in your heart that God raised him from the dead, you will be saved. For with the heart one believes and is justified, and with the mouth one confesses and is saved. For the Scripture says, “Everyone who believes in him will not be put to shame.” For there is no distinction between Jew and Greek; for the same Lord is Lord of all, bestowing his riches on all who call on him. For “everyone who calls on the name of the Lord will be saved.”
(Romans 10:8-13 ESV)
So please, do not hesitate. Do not put this off. If you are interested in knowing God and have any questions, ask them here: ask.fm/SeanLuke
Or email me at: mrmanwookie@gmail.com
Or most ideally, contact me. If you know me personally (or even go to Neuqua!), I'd love to talk to you. I'd love to grab Starbucks or something with you and share Jesus. I can testify: knowing Him has been the sweetest, most beautiful reality in my life. There is no one like Him. My heart belongs to the King, and I'd like to share my heart with anyone who is seeking. 

“Ask, and it will be given to you; seek, and you will find; knock, and it will be opened to you. For everyone who asks receives, and the one who seeks finds, and to the one who knocks it will be opened. Or which one of you, if his son asks him for bread, will give him a stone? Or if he asks for a fish, will give him a serpent? If you then, who are evil, know how to give good gifts to your children, how much more will your Father who is in heaven give good things to those who ask him! (Matthew 7:7-11 ESV)