Adoptionism: Was St Paul in error?

[NoelFitz]

Romans 1:4 (NRSV) has

and was declared to be Son of God with power according to the spirit of holiness by resurrection from the dead, Jesus Christ our Lord,

This seems to imply an adoptionist Christology was held by Paul. The above may belong to an older creed used by Paul. This view of adoptionism seems to be supported by Acts. As well as the idea that at a time God begot Jesus.

Therefore let the entire house of Israel know with certainty that God has made him both Lord and Messiah, this Jesus whom you crucified.” (2:36)

And we bring you the good news that what God promised to our ancestors he has fulfilled for us, their children, by raising Jesus; as also it is written in the second psalm,
‘You are my Son;
today I have begotten you.’ (13:32,33).

Reading these views it seems to me to support the need for tradition in the Church, as it was not until hundreds of years after the Bible was completed that the Church came to understand Christ better.

What do you think?

1 Did Luke and Paul have incorrect/incomplete/partial Christologies?
2 Does this show the necessity of development in Christian doctrine?

 

[Verbum]

Hi Noel,

I don’t know what adoptionism is but I know this. The Bible lhas ONE AUTHOR : God. It cannot be wrong anywhere. Any single passage must be interpreted in the light of the WHOLE bible.

Verbum

 

[Foreigner]

Romans 1:4 (NRSV) has

This seems to imply an adoptionist Christology was held by Paul. The above may belong to an older creed used by Paul. This view of adoptionism seems to be supported by Acts. As well as the idea that at a time God begot Jesus.

Reading these views it seems to me to support the need for tradition in the Church, as it was not until hundreds of years after the Bible was completed that the Church came to understand Christ better.

What do you think?

1 Did Luke and Paul have incorrect/incomplete/partial Christologies?
2 Does this show the necessity of development in Christian doctrine?

You will find few people who truly wish to honestly and openly explore the implications of Acts 2:36 and 13:30-33 with you because they do not understand how in the world Luke could be saying these things.

I know… it’s unfortunate.

Acts 2:26 is clearly intended to say that Jesus became Lord and Christ when he rose from the dead. Acts 13:30-33 is clearly intended to say that God made Jesus his Son in the resurrection.

However, that doesn’t mean you can forget that Luke wrote that God conceived his Son in Mary.

Pretend you are God.
Pretend that your Son’s birth includes all the time frame from conceiving Mary right up to the resurrection of the body and Jesus coming out of creation into the presence of You, God, his Father. Think of his death as something like severing the umbilical cord and his resurrection as coming out of the womb, out of the world into God’s presence.

Our perspective is one thing. God’s is another. Jesus being born to us in the world is not Jesus being born to God in heaven.

 

[NoelFitz]

Foreigner
Thank you for reading my post and appreciating what I am trying to express.

You see the problem. Bot I do not accept your reply.

Verbum
I think your reply is not really helpful.
You wrote:

I don’t know what adoptionism.

This statement does not inspire confidence in your reply.

The point I was making is that the Bible is not all there is for Catholics.

Tradition and the councils contribute to our faith.

Christology was developed in Nicaea.

 

[Usagi]

This seems to imply an adoptionist Christology was held by Paul. The above may belong to an older creed used by Paul. This view of adoptionism seems to be supported by Acts. As well as the idea that at a time God begot Jesus.

I asked an old pastor of mine about this issue years ago.

He offered the helpful idea that the human soul of Jesus was only fully exalted with the Resurrection and Ascension.

Thus, even under the fully developed understanding of Jesus’ eternal Sonship and two natures, the adoptionist-sounding language of very early writings can be seen as correct insofar as it refers to Jesus being gloriously rewarded for his role as the Perfect Man and Second Adam. As God He was merely returning to His former state (and Paul seems to acknowledge this strain of belief as well when he speaks of Jesus having “emptied himself” to take our form, in the reading from this past Sunday), but as Man He was newly exalted to the highest heights imaginable, to sit on the heavenly throne not only as the Messiah descended from David but as God Himself, the Second Person of the Blessed Trinity.

Though we must believe that all things intentionally asserted by the authors are true, I believe the Scriptures are allowed to be a bit “fuzzy” on matters such as the Trinity and the Incarnation, reflecting the seed-like state of the early Church’s understanding. The Scriptural record is, so to speak, the “raw data” from which later study and discussion derived the fully formed doctrines. Scripture never sets things out as clearly as the later creeds would, but the information is there. In fact, it is likely the seeming contradictions in the “raw data” (insistence on One God while also ascribing divinity to Jesus and the Spirit; references to Jesus both as an exalted Man and as the willingly humbled God; etc.) that compelled the eventual formulation of the paradoxical doctrines that are now foundational to orthodox Christianity – God as three Persons in one Substance; Jesus as one Person with two Natures).

Usagi

 

[NoelFitz]

Usagi
many thanks for your very sound reply.

I would not like to claim Jesus had two souls, a human one and a divine one.

But I accept your idea that as man Jesus was rewarded by God.

Thus what was for me a difficulty has been resolved.
Again, many thanks.

 

[Usagi]

Usagi
many thanks for your very sound reply.

I would not like to claim Jesus had two souls, a human one and a divine one.

I don’t believe He had two. Just the one, but it was as human as yours or mine, presumably created anew at His conception just as ours are. Of course, it was also inextricably united to His pre-existing divine Person.

It’s an important thing that I didn’t understand back when I was a Protestant. Jesus wasn’t just God in a human suit, with the “God” part where our soul would be. He was true God and true man. The Second Person of the Trinity united Himself to a true human soul, as well as going about in a human body. God had appeared in the form of a human before, but the Incarnation was something special.

Usagi