Is Christ God?

[fastfredy0]

Yes, my wife and I often see what appears to be a good programme advertised, but when we start to watch it, the language used is disgusting, so we switch it off.

Well, we still watch the UK shows. Almost more disconcerting when the BLIP out the "F" bombs on the U.S. shows. I would like the idea of incentivizing them to stop swearing by diminishing their prize money of pay checks "X" dollars each time they swore. Maybe give them classes on meaningful adjective to use as replacements. *giggle*

 

[Eleanor]

I was thinking the same thing. But, if God always does things the best way as determined by His essence, then He couldn't do it a different (2nd best) way. But I get what your saying. In theory there's no need for Christ to die and be resurrected as God could have created men that would not sin like He did with 2/3s of the angels, but
the current way must be the best way.

No doubt about it. . .

It is absolutely the best means to the best end.

 

[Eleanor]

Re: ignorance of Christ and His gospel which is needed for salvation

Deny definition: state that one refuses to admit the truth or existence of.
How can you deny the facts if how are unaware of what the facts are?

God says the facts of his existence and nature are plain from the observation of creation.

It is not necessary to deny Christ in order to be condemned.
We are by nature objects of wrath (Eph 2:3), born condemned by the sin of Adam imputed to us (Ro 5:12-17).
Condemnation is the destiny of everyone who does not believe in and trust on Christ's atonement (Ro 3:25) for the remission of their sin.

 

[Josheb]

Probably because many don't believe in His resurrection (Romans 10:9) which validates His Lordship.

Sure. There are many reasons for the lack, not just a failure to believe the resurrection occurred. Mere intellectual assent never saves and that comes in a variety of forms. In one of his apologetic books, Tim Keller reported he'd met an atheist who believed Jesus was a real historical and the Christian account was true..... but he simply chose not to believe he need to respond the truth, that truth, those facts. I have no doubt that in an occasion of urgent distress beyond that individual's faculties to address he might "cry out" to God/Christ and experience nothing; perhaps never considering the correlation between mere assent's insufficiency and any expectation (assuming such an expectation existed) God would respond.

The things of the Spirit are not comprehended by the natural man, and he thinks them foolish.

 

[fastfredy0]

It is not necessary to deny Christ in order to be condemned.

Agreed. But denying Christ ensures one is condemned

 

[makesends]

Certainly here in the UK it has become so common to use the name "God" as an exclamation that the people who use it that way are not likely to be even thinking of God, the almighty, immortal Being. They can't truly be said to be "calling on His Name."

In fact, it is taking his name in vain.

 

[makesends]

God says the facts of his existence and nature are plain from the observation of creation.

It is not necessary to deny Christ in order to be condemned.
We are by nature objects of wrath (Eph 2:3,) born condemned by the sin of Adam imputed to us (Ro 5:12-17).
Condemnation is the destiny of everyone who does not believe in and trust on Christ's atonement (Ro 3:25) for the remission of their sin.

Aside from that imputation, and I'm nit-picking here, I suppose, but inherent in Romans 8's "mind according to the flesh", we by nature are denying Christ, whether that denial of Christ is necessary for condemnation or not.