The Lowedown

Christology/Soteriology Questionnaire

What do you think Philippians 2:7 means when it says that Jesus emptied himself (made himself nothing)?

The exact meaning of this verse has been debated and has been referred to as the Kenosis Theory. Some have interpreted the phrase "made himself nothing" to mean that Jesus gave up some of his divine attributes while he was on earth. This is not a biblical teaching. For if Jesus ceased to possess the attributes of God then he ceased to be God. This is not an option.

Some believe that while Jesus continued to possess his divine attributes, he voluntarily chose not to use them. Instead, Jesus is the perfect example to us of someone who relied completely on the Holy Spirit. In this view, the "emptying" refers to something that Jesus gave up or chose not to use (i.e. the use of his divine attributes).

A third option is that the "emptying" that Jesus experienced was the taking on of human flesh. Hence, this view stresses that the "emptying" was something Jesus took (i.e. taking on a human nature). This is the definition of the incarnation: God taking on a human nature. In this view, Jesus continued to possess his divine nature, but added a human nature so that he was fully God and fully man at the same time. Though he continued to possess all the divine attributes, he was limited in his exercise of some of them because of his human nature. For example, though Jesus continued to possess the divine attribute of omni-presence, he didn't exercise it because he was limited in his humanity.

Explain the Lordship salvation controversy. Which side do you lean towards?

(Do people need to accept Christ as Lord and Savior to be saved or can they just accept him as Savior?)

The Lordship salvation controversy can be summed up as follows. Those who hold to Lordship salvation believe that in order to be genuinely saved one must make an initial commitment to Jesus as Lord as well as savior. In other words, there must be an initial commitment to follow and obey Christ. Without this commitment, we are encouraging people to just believe in Jesus, without expecting a real life change. They have referred to this as "easy believism", because it infers that people can mentally assent to certain beliefs without ever making a life commitment to Christ. This, they say, is why many people profess to be Christians but whose lives don't reflect it. Such people are not saved, according to the Lordship group.

Those who don't ascribe to lordship salvation would say that the only thing necessary to become a Christian is to put one's faith in Christ to pay for sins. To require an initial commitment of lordship is akin to adding works to salvation. This is a legalistic requirement. They would also say that making Christ Lord is a call to discipleship not salvation. Certainly believers should be challenged to make Christ Lord and to obey him and follow him, but non-believers should not be given this requirement.

A fundamental disagreement between the two groups is in their view of repentance. The lordship group views repentance as a turning away from sin and a turning to Christ in order to follow him as Lord. The non-lordship group views repentance as a change in mind about Jesus.

There are many Scriptures for both sides but the lordship group would point to verses that indicate that true believers must demonstrate fruit otherwise they are not saved. (John 15) The non-lordship group would agree that fruit is an indication of your status as a believer but would not make fruit an objective requirement. After all, some Christians don't show fruit for awhile, but may still be genuine believers.

The non-Lordship group points to numerous verses that indicate that belief alone is all that's necessary for salvation (John 5:24, John 1:12). In addition, in Rom. 12:1, Paul admonishes believers to submit to Christ's lordship. This indicates that it is possible that true believers haven't made Jesus Lord. Lastly, non-lordship proponents point to 1 Cor. 3 as evidence that it is possible to be a true believer but living a non-fruitful life.

Do you believe that people are saved because of their free choice to come to Christ (free will), or do you believe that people are saved because God chooses them (election)?

Those who emphasize man's free choice are known as Arminians. Arminians believe that man is a free moral creature and that salvation is based primarily on man's choice to turn to God.

Calvinists believe that God sovereignly chooses who will be saved. This doctrine is referred to as election. There is ample evidence to support the Calvinist view. Ephesians 1:4 states that God chose us before the foundation of the world. Similarly, vs. 5 says that we've been predestined. Romans 8:29 also communicates that we've been predestined. Other verses that lend support to this conclusion are Ephesians 1:11 and 2:10, Acts 13:48, and 2 Thess. 2:13.

Arminians typically do not dispute that we've been predestined or chosen by God but they contend that God's choice is based on his foreknowledge. They cite Romans 8:29 as evidence that God looks into the future and chooses those whom he sees will accept him. Therefore, salvation is not based on God's sovereign choice, but on man's choice of God.

Calvinists argue that salvation must be based on God's sovereign choice for the following reasons:

a. If election is based on our choice then you have the beginnings of salvation by merit since there is a condition placed on God's choosing.

b. Predestination based on foreknowledge doesn't give people free will but leads to determinism. Basically, if God can look into the future and see that you will come to Christ then that event is determined and there is nothing that will change that fact. Therefore, the event is determined and you really don't have the option of not coming to Christ. In this way, your freedom is limited for true freedom demands that the option exists that you won't choose God. This idea is really not much different than election. Therefore, it is better to say that salvation is based on God's sovereign choice, for it fits the Scriptural references in the most complete way.

One final option says that God does choose but he does it in such a way that he orchestrates the circumstances so that you will want to choose him. Hence, you ultimately choose God because you wanted to, but God made the circumstances such that it was certain you would choose God. In this way, man's free will isn't compromised, but neither is God's sovereign choice.

Do you believe that Jesus' death pays for everyone's sins, or do you believe that Jesus' death only pays for the sins of those who ultimately are saved?

Certain forms of Calvinism teach that Jesus' death was not universal in its atonement. This doctrine is known to them as "Limited Atonement". They reason that Jesus' death was only effective in paying for the sins of those that God predestined beforehand to be saved. To believe otherwise would lead to universalism, the idea that all will be ultimately saved because of Christ's death.

The other view states that Jesus' atonement was universal in its ability to pay for sin. Though Jesus' death was sufficient to pay for all sin, it was not efficacious for all. This simply means that Jesus death is able to pay for all sin, but doesn't effectively pay for all sin. It is only effective (efficacious) for those who ultimately do accept Christ.

Do you think it was possible for Jesus to sin? If no, how could his temptation have been real? If yes, how could he be God?

Some believe that Jesus definitely could have sinned. If he couldn't have sinned than he wasn't a "real" human. Others claim that Jesus could NOT have sinned, or else he wouldn't have been God. The former view emphasizes Jesus' humanity while the latter view emphasizes Jesus' deity.

The important thing to remember is that Jesus possessed a dual nature: he was fully God and fully man at the same time. When Jesus faced temptation, it had to be a real temptation. The scriptures say that Jesus was tempted in every way just like us but was without sin. Also, because he has experienced everything that we experience (with regard to temptations), he is a merciful high priest. Therefore, if Jesus could not have sinned, then his temptation is not "real".

On the other hand, because Jesus is God, he couldn't sin, for God cannot sin. How can we reconcile these two ideas? Some who believe that Jesus voluntarily gave up the use of his divine attributes would say that Jesus resisted temptation because of his perfect dependence on the Holy Spirit. In this way, Jesus is a perfect example to us of how man can walk with God and it gives us hope that we can resist temptation and not sin, just as 1 Cor. 10:13 seems to indicate.

However, others argue that Jesus, in his humanity could've sinned, but in his deity, he could not. Therefore, it was possible for Jesus to sin (in his humanity) but it was certain that he would not (because of his deity). In this way, we can say that Jesus experienced everything we experience yet was without sin. Jesus is our example and we are to imitate him, but we must not be frustrated if we don't attain his ideal.