Basic HTML Version
300
unworthy of man to accept on the authority of Scripture what was clearly contrary to human
reason. That which did not commend itself to this new arbiter was simply declared to be
erroneous. Individual philosophers and theologians now tried their hand at solving the problem
presented by Christ, in order that they might offer the Church a substitute for the two-nature
doctrine. They took their starting point in the human Jesus, and even after a century of
painstaking research found in Jesus no more than a man with a divine element in Him. They
could not rise to the recognition of Him as their Lord and their God. Schleiermacher spoke of a
man with a supreme God-consciousness, Ritschl, of a man having the value of a God, Wendt, of
a man standing in a continual inward fellowship of love with God, Beyschlag, of a God-filled
man, and Sanday, of a man with an inrush of the divine in the sub-consciousness; — but Christ
is and remains merely a man. To-day the liberal school represented by Harnack, the
eschatological school of Weiss and Schweitzer, and the more recent school of comparative
religion, headed by Bousset and Kirsopp Lake, all agree in denuding Christ of His true deity, and
in reducing Him to human dimensions. To the first our Lord is merely a great ethical teacher; to
the second, an apocalyptic seer; and to the third a peerless leader to an exalted destiny. They
regard the Christ of the Church as the creation of Hellenism, or of Judaism, or of the two
combined. To-day, however, the whole epistemology of the previous century is called in
question, and the sufficiency of human reason for the interpretation of ultimate truth is
seriously questioned. There is a new emphasis on revelation. And influential theologians, such
as Barth and Brunner, Edwin Lewis and Nathaniel Micklem, do not hesitate to confess faith
once more in the doctrine of the two natures. It is of the utmost importance to maintain this
doctrine, as it was formulated by the Council of Chalcedon and is contained in our Confessional
Standards.[Conf. Belg., Art. XIX; Heidelberg Cat., Qs. 15-18; Canons of Dort II, Art. IV.]
1. SCRIPTURE PROOFS FOR THE DEITY OF CHRIST.
In view of the widespread denial of the deity
of Christ, it is of the utmost importance to be thoroughly conversant with the Scripture proof
for it. The proof is so abundant that no one who accepts the Bible as the infallible Word of God
can entertain any doubt on this point. For the ordinary classification of the Biblical proofs, as
derived from the divine names, the divine attributes, the divine works, and the divine honor
ascribed to Him, we would refer to the chapter on the Trinity. A somewhat different
arrangement is followed here in view of the recent trend of historical criticism.
a. In the Old Testament.
Some have shown an inclination to deny that the Old Testament
contains predictions of a divine Messiah, but this denial is quite untenable in view of such
passages as Ps. 2:6-12 (Heb. 1:5); 45:6,7 (Heb. 1:8,9); 110:1 (Heb. 1:13); Isa. 9:6; Jer. 23:6; Dan.
7:13; Mic. 5:2; Zech. 13:7; Mal. 3:1. Several of the latest historical scholars strongly insist on the
fact that the doctrine of a superhuman Messiah was native to pre-Christian Judaism. Some even
find in it the explanation for the supernatural Christology of parts of the New Testament.