INFANT BAPTISM?

In a desperate attempt for the Catholic Church to justify Infant Baptism in biblical point of view, simple rules on evidence are grossly disregarded. Using invalid assumptions, their reasoning only shows how far they are away from truth.

They are using the verses, 1 Cor 1:16 and Acts 16:15 which both say that a “household” was baptized. With a presumption that a “household” , the entire family has children and babies with them, they conclude that infants can receive baptism. This inconclusive line of thinking even begets more irrational consequence. Even some domestic animals are considered “household pets”. So, it is not far fetched that in Catholic Church even animals will get baptism too!

In order to fully come to the knowledge of truth on this issue, there are basic questions that must be answered:

a. What is baptism for?
b. Who and How did the early Christians get baptized?
c. Is there any biblical record where infants received baptism?
d. What is the Christian practice of receiving babies and children?




Baptism in the Bible

Baptism is for remission of sins. As written,

John did baptize in the wilderness, and preach the baptism of repentance for the remission of sins. (Mark 1:4)
And were baptized of him in Jordan, confessing their sins. (Matthew 3:6)

Having a remission of sin, one shall receive the holy spirit. As written,

Then Peter said unto them, Repent, and be baptized every one of you in the name of Jesus Christ for the remission of sins, and ye shall receive the gift of the Holy Ghost. (Acts 2:38)

Baptism is also baptism to the death of our Lord Jesus Christ. As written,

Know ye not, that so many of us as were baptized into Jesus Christ were baptized into his death? Therefore we are buried with him by baptism into death: that like as Christ was raised up from the dead by the glory of the Father, even so we also should walk in newness of life. (Romans 6:3-4)

Follow-Up Clarificatory Question: If baptism is for remission of sin, then why did our Lord Jesus Christ receive baptism from John if our Lord had never committed sin?
The answer is directly from our Lord Jesus Christ Himself when John the Baptist was hesitant to administer the baptism to our Lord. As written,

Then cometh Jesus from Galilee to Jordan unto John, to be baptized of him.
But John forbad him, saying, I have need to be baptized of thee, and comest thou to me?
And Jesus answering said unto him, Suffer it to be so now: for thus it becometh us to fulfil all righteousness. Then he suffered him.
And Jesus, when he was baptized, went up straightway out of the water: and, lo, the heavens were opened unto him, and he saw the Spirit of God descending like a dove, and lighting upon him: (Matthew 3:13-16)

Before receiving baptism, the person must be a believer (i.e capacity to believe)

He that believeth and is baptized shall be saved; but he that believeth not shall be damned. (Mark 16:16)
And Crispus, the chief ruler of the synagogue, believed on the Lord with all his house; and many of the Corinthians hearing believed, and were baptized. (Acts 18:8)

But how can someone believe if not receiving the words of God? As written,

How then shall they call on him in whom they have not believed? and how shall they believe in him of whom they have not heard? and how shall they hear without a preacher? (Romans 10: 14)

It is necessary that a person must hear the words of God before believing. In the case of early Christians, they heard the Gospel before receiving baptism. As written,

Then they that gladly received his word were baptized: and the same day there were added unto them about three thousand souls. (Acts 2:41)

Baptism is for men and women. As written,

But when they believed Philip preaching the things concerning the kingdom of God, and the name of Jesus Christ, they were baptized, both men and women. (Acts 8:12).

Men and Women are mature individuals that are capable to receive teachings and capable to observe all things commanded by Christ. As written,

Go ye therefore, and teach all nations, baptizing them in the name of the Father, and of the Son, and of the Holy Ghost:
Teaching them to observe all things whatsoever I have commanded you: and, lo, I am with you alway, even unto the end of the world. Amen. (Matthew 28:19-20)

Baptism is also into one body. Thus,

For by one Spirit are we all baptized into one body, whether we be Jews or Gentiles, whether we be bond or free; and have been all made to drink into one Spirit. (1 Cor 12:13)

The body being referred to is no other than the Church (Col 1:18).


In terms of method or procedure of baptism, the bible is so vivid to describe it. Baptism requires a lot of water. As written,

And John also was baptizing in Aenon near to Salim, because there was much water there: and they came, and were baptized. (John 3:23)

The person to be baptized and the one who will administer it shall both go down into the water just like the case of the eunuch being baptized by Philip. As written,

And he commanded the chariot to stand still: and they went down both into the water, both Philip and the eunuch; and he baptized him. (Acts 8:38)

Baptism is described as “burial” with the death of Jesus Christ. As written,

Therefore we are buried with him by baptism into death: that like as Christ was raised up from the dead by the glory of the Father, even so we also should walk in newness of life. (Romans 6:4)
Buried with him in baptism, wherein also ye are risen with him through the faith of the operation of God, who hath raised him from the dead. (Col 2:12)

In IGLESIA NI CRISTO (Church of Christ), baptism is conducted in places with much waters such as river, sea, and pool. The method is by immersion just like burying.

HOW ABOUT INFANT BAPTISM?

Is there any biblical record that infants and babies get baptism? NONE. Based on above-mentioned biblical truths, infants and babies are not capable to receive baptism.
a. Babies and infants do not have faculty to believe.
b. Babies and infants do not have the faculty to discern the concept of sin.
c. Babies and infants do not have the faculty to receive teachings and commandments of God for them to observe.
d. It is physically unsafe for babies and infants to receive the method of baptism as written in the bible.

With all these limitations, how did the early Christians receive babies and infants into the congregation? When our Lord Jesus Christ was born, he was offered to God under Jewish custom as written in Luke 2: 22- 32.
At the time of Christ, infants were brought unto our Lord Jesus Christ for Him to put hands and pray for them. Parallel accounts are written in the gospel. As written,

Then were there brought unto him little children, that he should put his hands on them, and pray: and the disciples rebuked them.
But Jesus said, Suffer little children, and forbid them not, to come unto me: for of such is the kingdom of heaven.
And he laid his hands on them, and departed thence. ( Matthew 19:13-15)

And they brought young children to him, that he should touch them: and his disciples rebuked those that brought them.
But when Jesus saw it, he was much displeased, and said unto them, Suffer the little children to come unto me, and forbid them not: for of such is the kingdom of God.
Verily I say unto you, Whosoever shall not receive the kingdom of God as a little child, he shall not enter therein.
And he took them up in his arms, put his hands upon them, and blessed them. (Mark 10:13-16)

And they brought unto him also infants, that he would touch them: but when his disciples saw it, they rebuked them.
But Jesus called them unto him, and said, Suffer little children to come unto me, and forbid them not: for of such is the kingdom of God.
Verily I say unto you, Whosoever shall not receive the kingdom of God as a little child shall in no wise enter therein. (Luke 18:15-17)

In IGLESIA NI CRISTO (Church of Christ), infants and little children are offered to God by laying on of hands and prayer by minister in a congregational worship. The child is called “HANDOG”.

Gates of Hell shall not prevail against it (Matthew 16:18)

Catholic defenders use this verse to deny the apostasy of the first century church. In their reasoning they say that nobody (even death) could topple the church.

Their interpretation is very far from the context written in the bible.

What does Christ mean by His pronouncement that "gates of hell shall not prevail against it”?

If we search the old scriptures and find for related pronouncement, the expression is taken from Isaiah 25:8 saying

“He will swallow up death in victory; and the Lord GOD will wipe away tears from off all faces; and the rebuke of his people shall he take away from off all the earth: for the LORD hath spoken it.”

When Apostle Paul used this verse, he did NOT mean “continuity” or “dominance” of the church as interpreted by the Catholic defenders. “Victory over death” is no other than resurrection. (1 Cor 15: 54-55).

“So when this corruptible shall have put on incorruption, and this mortal shall have put on immortality, then shall be brought to pass the saying that is written, Death is swallowed up in victory. O death, where is thy sting? O grave, where is thy victory? The sting of death is sin; and the strength of sin is the law. But thanks be to God, which giveth us the victory through our Lord Jesus Christ.”


So then, what is the most strong biblical proof that rebukes the claim of Catholic defenders about their so-called "continuity" of Church?

The answer is from the statement of Lord Jesus Christ Himself saying,

And other sheep I have, which are not of this fold: them also I must bring, and they shall hear my voice; and there shall be one fold, and one shepherd. (John 10:16)


How can "other sheep" which are NOT of this fold be one fold with one shepherd?

ON ISAIAH 9:6

The verse says,

For unto us a child is born, unto us a son is given: and the government shall be upon his shoulder: and his name shall be called Wonderful, Counsellor, The mighty God, The everlasting Father, The Prince of Peace.

Those who believe in the deity of Christ are one in agreement that this prophecy concerning Christ directly calls Christ as the mighty God. However, this understanding begets contentions even from among them. There are valid remarks such as

1) How can Jesus be the everlasting Father?
2) How can a God be born and a son is also the Father?

I would like to cut to the chase in understanding this verse. This post doesn’t intend to invite “granting-without-conceding type of argumentative debates”.

For clarity, the verse should be translated as follows:

"For to us a child is born, a son is given to us, and the government shall be on his shoulder, and his name will be called Pele Yoetz El Gibor Avi Ad Sar Shalom."

The long name “Pele Yoetz El Gibor Avi Ad Sar Shalom” literally means “Wonderful, Counsellor, The mighty God, The everlasting Father, (calls) The Prince of Peace.”

It is very much obvious that it is a name that will be called such. Hence, it is a theophoric name that is common in the bible.
Jesus Christ has a theophoric name which is Immanuel (“God with us”) Mt 1:23.

There are many biblical characters who have theophoric names. The Wikipedia has its article on the Theophory in the bible.
Having theophoric name does not prove the deity of Christ. Otherwise, there would be lots of Gods.

ON HEBREWS 1:8

This verse has been the subject of much debate because bible versions do not agree as to how the verse is translated. The verse is,

But unto the Son he saith, Thy throne, O God, is for ever and ever: a sceptre of righteousness is the sceptre of thy kingdom. (King James Version)

There are two major versions of verse 8,

1. But unto the Son he saith, Thy throne, O God… (King James Version)
2. He says of the Son, ‘God is thy throne… (Mofatt)

Although the said versions are not directly opposing in their meaning but the argument lies as to whom the statement is addressed. Accordingly, the KJV would say that the writer is addressing someone as “God who has a throne” while the Mofatt would say that the writer is telling that the “God is himself the throne”. The argument becomes relevant because this would suggest the alleged deity of Jesus Christ on the basis of being called as “God”.

The Iglesia ni Cristo does not have its own bible version. We will not meddle with the translation.

The Iglesia ni Cristo does not subscribe also to the above premise that Christ is God on the basis that Christ, allegedly is being called as “God”. (On a personal note, I just could not believe that such primary article or doctrine of faith will be based on “who said so”. Our Lord Jesus Christ deserves a formal introduction, so to speak. )

Not taking either side, we have the holy spirit to guide us in understanding this verse. Again, we employ the rule: Compare spiritual things with spiritual.( 1 Cor 2:13)

OUR STAND

The verse Hebrews 1:8 is among the references directly copied from the Old Testament by the writer. As references, we must understand the verses as to how they are used by the writer to support the main point or “thesis” of the chapter.

Before any further discussion, let us clarify what I mean by “REFERENCE”.

For example, the style of this blog is to make references to the verses in the bible. It begins with an assertion, a stand or point. Then, I copied the verses verbatim from the bible to support my claim. I left the understanding to the reader whether my statement are biblical or not. I just intend to use it as my guide.

At times, this blog may also employ “QUOTATION” as oppose to REFERENCING. In “quotation”, the verses are directly used during the course of discussion. I use the same phrasing used by the bible. For instance, we say that

“In order to understand a verse we are comparing spiritual things with spiritual”.

This is a quotation from 1 Cor 2:13.
If I rather choose to make a REFERENCING to this verse, I would say

“In order to understand a verse, we compare it to other verses of the bible. As written in 1 Cor 2:13, thus, Which things also we…..”

If we go back to the entire Chapter 1 of the book of Hebrews, we observe that nine(9) out of the 14 verses are taken from Old Testament. Six(6) of this nine verses are verbatim REFERENCES including the Hebrews 1:8. The first four verses (Heb 1:1-4) contain the main statement of the chapter while verses 5-13 are supporting verses. The last verse is the transition from chapter 1 to the next chapter.

The main statements of chapter 1 are

1) God has spoken through prophets in the past but now through His Son (Jesus Christ).
2) God appointed Christ as heir of the universe and through Christ, God made the worlds.
3) Glorious Jesus Christ is sitting on the right hand of Majesty.
4) Christ is much better than angels because Christ inherited a NAME that is superior to those of the angels.

The supporting verses from Old Testaments cited in verses 5-13 are as follows:

1. Psalm 2:7, Psalm 89:26,27 for verse 5
2. Psalm 104:4 for verse 7
3. Psalm 45:6-7 for verses 8-9
4. Psalm 102:25-27 for verses 10-12
5. Psalm 110:1 for verse 13

The supporting verses are copied from Old Testament verbatim and pasted in series with conjunctions such as “but to son he say..”, “and of the angels he said”, “and” etc.

Had the book of Hebrews written in a formatted layout and not in a paragraph form, the whole chapter 1 of the book should only contain 5 verses with footnotes as REFERENCE.

As REFERENCES, we should look into each verse and find out how these supporting verses are connected to the main statements of chapter 1.

1. Verses Psalm 2:7, 89:26-27 support the first statement that Christ is the Son of God.
2. Psalm 104:4 supports the 4th statement. Angels are ministering spirits for the heir of salvation.
3. Psalm 45:6-7 support 2nd statement. Christ is anointed by God. The throne of God is forever. This supports 3rd statement since Christ sits on the right hand of God or throne of God (Heb 8:1)
4. Psalm 102:25-27 support 2nd statement. God created the world. He doesn’t not change.
5. Psalm 110:1 supports 3rd statement. Christ is sitting on the right hand of God.

The verses of Hebrew 1:8 and verse 9 were taken together from same part of the book of Psalm. The verses from 10 to 12 were taken from different chapter of the book of Psalm. This discontinuity suggests that Hebrews 1:10-12 is not anymore related in sense to Hebrews 1:8-9.

Now that we know that Hebrews 1:8-9 is copied from Psalm 45:6-7, our next step is to determine how these verses are used as references to the Son( But unto the son he saith…). We need to know who spoke the said verses in Psalm.

If we inspect all supporting verses taken from Psalm, we note that the above-mentioned five (5) references have different point of views. Reference #1 is spoken by God Himself as quoted by the writer of the PSALM. Reference #2 is spoken by the writer of Psalm while praising God. Reference #3 which is part of Psalm Chapter 45, is spoken by writer of PSALM addressed to a King and to a daughter. Reference #4 is spoken by the writer of PSALM while praying to God. Reference #5 is spoken by third person which is David talking about his Lord speaking to a Lord.

Who spoke the Psalm 45:6-7? Who said about the Son?

The verses are,

“Thy throne, O God, is for ever and ever: the sceptre of thy kingdom is a right sceptre.
Thou lovest righteousness, and hatest wickedness: therefore God, thy God, hath anointed thee with the oil of gladness above thy fellows.”(Psalm 45:6-7)

The entire chapter 45 of Psalm is spoken by the author for a king (Psalm 45:1) and also to a daughter (verse 10). It is NOT the God who spoke these verses. If we read the entire Chapter 1 of book of Hebrews as one whole article, the pronoun “he” in the phrases “And of the angels he saith..(v.7”) and “But unto the Son he saith..(v.8)” appears to be spoken by God. The two should not contradict one another. Therefore, this validates our point that the supporting verses (Hebrews 1:5-13) are appended as REFERENCES.

As REFERENCE, it is not of primary importance who and for whom the verse was spoken. It is the content of the verse that matters. For instance, if we quote inspirational verses from the bible, it doesn’t matter anyhow if the verse was spoken by God, by prophets, by Jesus, by apostles for anyone like Israel, to brethren, to loved ones etc. Likewise, if the verses from Psalm are used as references, the author of the book of Hebrews doesn’t take into account whose point of view is the Psalm 45:6-7 and for whom it was uttered.

A GOD OF A GOD?

If we inspect Psalm 45:6-7, it appears that someone being called as God has a God. This is true if we are reading a continuous and coherent statement. However, the book of PSALM is a POETRY. In Poetry the point of view is very dynamic. Consider this verse

“Thy God hath commanded thy strength: strengthen, O God, that which thou hast wrought for us.” (Psalm 68:28)
To whom this verse is talking to?

Is there a passage in the book of Psalm where a verse is addressing to God yet the following or even the preceding verse is not directed to God? YES. Lots of them.

Example:

“Return unto thy rest, O my soul; for the LORD hath dealt bountifully with thee. For thou hast delivered my soul from death, mine eyes from tears, and my feet from falling.” (Psalm 116:7-8)

The first sentence (or line of a song) is addressing to his soul yet the following line addresses to the LORD.

There is even a single verse in Psalm where it addresses to two beings. Consider Psalm 104:1,

“Bless the LORD, O my soul. O LORD my God, thou art very great; thou art clothed with honour and majesty.”

This verse has two(2) second person point of view: o my soul and o Lord my God.

Therefore grammatical continuity of reference point of view is NOT consistent and coherent in the book of PSALM. However, this inherent property, similar to that of other poetry should not in any way set against our understanding of the book.

Thus, Hebrew 1:8( or Psalm 45:6) is addressing to God having a throne that is forever while Hebrew 1:9 (or Psalm 45:7) is talking to the anointed one who has a God. The conjunction “But unto the son he saith” of Hebrew 1:8 applies to Hebrew 1:8-9 which is taken from the same chapter of book of Psalm. Moreover, Hebrew 1:10-12 verses were taken from separate chapters of the book of Psalm. As references, these verses are not in any way connected to Hebrew 1:8-9.

The subsequent questions now are: Why does the writer of the Book of Hebrews use the two verses from Psalm as references to the Son? What does the “throne of God” associate with the Son? The answer can be found in Hebrews 12:2, saying

“Looking unto Jesus the author and finisher of our faith; who for the joy that was set before him endured the cross, despising the shame, and is set down at the right hand of the throne of God.”

Christ is the heir of all things. It might as well proper for the author of the book of Hebrews to describe the throne of God of which Christ would sit into. (Acts 2:30)

WORSHIPPING OUR LORD JESUS CHRIST

This is a response to an open question of an apologist challenging the belief of Iglesia ni Cristo with regards to the nature of Jesus Christ.

The questions go like these:

1) How does INC differentiate the worship to the Father to that of the worship to Jesus Christ?
2) Iglesia ni Cristo revere and worship Jesus Christ yet they believe that Jesus is human- a creature. Then this would be like worshipping a creature. Isn’t this contrary to what is written in Roman 1:25?
“Who changed the truth of God into a lie, and worshipped and served the creature more than the Creator, who is blessed for ever. Amen.”

Our answer:

Naturally, we worship God, the Father because He is our God and the Creator. As written,

“O come, let us worship and bow down: let us kneel before the LORD our maker. For he is our God; and we are the people of his pasture, and the sheep of his hand.” (Psalm 95:6-7)

We also worship our Lord Jesus Christ in order to glorify God our Father. As written,

“That at the name of Jesus every knee should bow, of things in heaven, and things in earth, and things under the earth; And that every tongue should confess that Jesus Christ is Lord, to the glory of God the Father.” (Phil 2:10-11) (emphasis mine)

WORSHIPPING A CREATURE?
The NAME of Jesus Christ and his LORDSHIP that were given to him by God, the Father do NOT qualify as CREATURES. As written,

“Wherefore God also hath highly exalted him, and given him a name which is above every name: That at the name of Jesus every knee should bow, of things in heaven, and things in earth, and things under the earth; And that every tongue should confess that Jesus Christ is Lord, to the glory of God the Father. (Phil 2:9-11 emphasis mine)

“Therefore let all the house of Israel know assuredly, that God hath made the same Jesus, whom ye have crucified, both Lord and Christ.”(Acts 2:36 emphasis mine)

We worship Jesus Christ NOT because he is a creature but because he bears the name given to Him by the Father. As written,

“Let them praise the name of the LORD: for his name alone is excellent; his glory is above the earth and heaven.” (Psalm 148:13)

Is Jesus Christ a Creator in John 1:3 and Colossians 1:16?

Christ-is-God believers profess that Christ is the creator of the universe. They use the following verses to support their claim:

1) John 1:3
2) Colossians 1:16
3) Hebrews 1:10 (discussed in a separate post)

John 1:3 and Colossians 1:16

The verses are as follows:

All things were made by him; and without him was not any thing made that was made. (John 1:3)

For by him were all things created, that are in heaven, and that are in earth, visible and invisible, whether they be thrones, or dominions, or principalities, or powers: all things were created by him, and for him: (Colossians 1:16)

There is no argument that the pronoun “him” refers to Jesus Christ; our contention is on the way we understand the verses.

Although I am not a good English speaker but I believe a little review of our English grammar would be handy. Try to consider the sentences,

All things were made by him. All things were created by him.

These are sentences in passive form. In order to convert these sentences to active form, we must assign a doer of the verbs “made” and “create”.
Christ-is-God believers insist that the doer of the verbs is Christ. If they convert the sentences to their active forms, they would say,

He(Christ) made all things. He(Christ) created all things.

However, we cannot see any other supporting verse that says actively and categorically that Jesus Christ created all things.
If we inspect Colossians 1:16, it says,

For by him were all things created…

The phrase “by him” is an adverbial clause. The sentence “ All things are created by him” is the same as “By him all things are created”. The object represented by the pronoun “him” is NOT the doer of the verbs. Hence, Christ is not the one who made all things and he is not the one who created all things.

WHO CREATED ALL THINGS?

In Ephesians 3:9, we can read the answer, thus,

“And to make all men see what is the fellowship of the mystery, which from the beginning of the world hath been hid in God, who created all things by Jesus Christ:”

It is the God, our Father who created all things. As written,

“Have we not all one father? hath not one God created us?” (Malachi 2:10)
“One God and Father of all, who is above all, and through all, and in you all.” (Eph 4:6)

BY JESUS CHRIST?

What is the meaning of the adverbial clause “by him” or “by Jesus Christ”?
The second clause of John 1:3 says that “without him (Christ) was not anything made that was made”. This is a type of a “reason clause”. God created all things for a purpose. As written,

“And to make all men see what is the fellowship of the mystery, which from the beginning of the world hath been hid in God, who created all things by Jesus Christ: To the intent that now unto the principalities and powers in heavenly places might be known by the church the manifold wisdom of God, According to the eternal purpose which he purposed in Christ Jesus our Lord:” (Eph 3:9-11) (emphasis mine)

What is the purpose of God?

In Ephesians 1:9-10, it says

“Having made known unto us the mystery of his will, according to his good pleasure which he hath purposed in himself: That in the dispensation of the fulness of times he might gather together in one all things in Christ, both which are in heaven, and which are on earth; even in him:”


Heir of All things

Christ is the appointed heir of all things (Hebrews 1:2). It does make a lot of sense that God the Father created all things for His heir. If Christ is already the creator and maker of things, then how can he be a heir?

If Christ is the maker and creator of all things, then what is the sense of saying “without him (Christ) was not anything made that was made”? Is not this an empty redundant statement?

As a heir, all things will be put under Christ and Christ himself will be subject to God so that the God may be all in all.(1 Cor 15:27-28)

Does fullness of God suggest being God?

This is one of the circumstantial proofs used by Christ-is-God proponents. Accordingly, in Christ dwelleth all the fullness of the Godhead bodily (Col 2:9). So their conclusion is: Christ is God.
But in Ephesian 3:19, it says that even to people of God, the fullness of God is expected to be filled also as written, “And to know the love of Christ, which passeth knowledge, that ye might be filled with all the fullness of God.”

It therefore follows that from above reasoning all people of God are Gods also.

Definitely absurd!

Is Jesus God in John 1:1,14

John 1:1,14
This is the common point being used by Christ-is-God proponents. But obviously the verse doesn’t explicitly say that Christ is God. The more justification they made the more complicated the argument becomes so much so that it casts more reasonable doubts.

The verse is “In the beginning was the Word, and the Word was with God, and the Word was God. (v14) And the Word was made flesh, and dwelt among us, (and we beheld his glory, the glory as of the only begotten of the Father,) full of grace and truth.”


They say that the WORD being mentioned is Christ. Accordingly, Christ is the LOGOS or Word of God as translated in English. Hence, for this equivocation the verse is loosely interpreted as

“In the beginning was the Christ, and the Christ was with God, and the Christ was God. (v14) And the Christ was made flesh, and dwelt among us, (and we beheld his glory, the glory as of the only begotten of the Father,) full of grace and truth.”


With this clever substitution, they extract meaning from it as follows:

1) Christ was there in the beginning. He had pre-existence.
2) Christ was and is God.
3) Christ was made flesh. Christ incarnates.

These extracted meanings even warrant further verification. These must be checked if supported by other verses of the bible.

The question whether Christ has pre-existence will be discussed sometime in this blog. Iglesia ni Cristo rejects the idea of pre-existence.

The verse (John 1:1,14) should be discerned as plain as possible without creating further assertions.

LOGOS is best understood by associated words such reason, logic, thought, principle, standard, statement. LOGOS is an abstract. It cannot be assigned to a person or entity.

In verse 14, it says “the LOGOS was made flesh and dwelt among us”. There is no argument that the flesh being referred to is none other than Jesus Christ.

So how should we understand the idea of an ABSTRACT was “made flesh”? The only best way to understand it is to compare it with other writings of John. We must compare spiritual things to spiritual. (1 Cor 2:13)

Compare John 1:1,14 and 1 John 1:1-3

Thus,
That which was from the beginning, which we have heard, which we have seen with our eyes, which we have looked upon, and our hands have handled, of the Word of life; (For the life was manifested, and we have seen it, and bear witness, and shew unto you that eternal life, which was with the Father, and was manifested unto us;) That which we have seen and heard declare we unto you, that ye also may have fellowship with us: and truly our fellowship is with the Father, and with his Son Jesus Christ. ( John 1:1-3)

The keywords found on this verse are beginning, Word of life, manifest, and fellowship.
If we extend our comparison of John Chapter 1 to the entire first chapter of 1 John, we would notice a resemblance. Other keywords are witness, and light.
So then, what is this something that is in the beginning? In the beginning was the PROMISE of eternal life as written in 1 John 2:24-25, thus,

Let that therefore abide in you, which ye have heard from the beginning. If that which ye have heard from the beginning shall remain in you, ye also shall continue in the Son, and in the Father.And this is the promise that he hath promised us, even eternal life.


So it makes a complete sense. The WORD being directly referred to in John 1:1, 14 is the PROMISE of the eternal life. The verse should be rendered as,

“In the beginning was the PROMISE, and the PROMISE was with God, and the PROMISE was God. (v14) And the PROMISE was made flesh, and dwelt among us, (and we beheld his glory, the glory as of the only begotten of the Father,) full of grace and truth.”

This PROMISE of God was before the world began (Titus 1:2) through the prophets in the holy scriptures (Romans 1:2). The phrase “PROMISE was made flesh” is synonymous to “PROMISE being fulfilled in Christ” (Acts 13:32-33) or “PROMISE being MANIFESTED (1 John 1:2).

But why does it say :”WORD was God”?

The word “God” in the phrase “and the Word was God” is taken as an adjective and NOT a noun as opposed to the phrase “and the Word was a God”. The missing article “a” spells the difference.

The said expression should mean “the WORD was divine”. In the Mofatt translation of the verse, it says,

“THE Logos existed in the very beginning, the Logos was with God, the Logos was divine.”

My LORD and My GOD (John 20:28)

The statement of Thomas to Jesus Christ saying, “My Lord and my God” is not a good basis to believe that Jesus Christ is God. These are our contentions:

1) The verses are narrative in nature and not expository or discussing a doctrine. This is analogous to a hearsay in a civil court of law.

2) Thomas was an unbelieving person during that time. (verse 27 and 29) It is quite inconceivable that a major if not pillar article of faith like the nature of Christ be explained by a mere statement of an unbelieving member.

3) Thomas and the rest of the group were frightened (Luke 24:37). The statement of Thomas was likely a statement of surprise. The response of Thomas was similar to that suprised Cornelius who called the angel of God as LORD. (Acts 10:3-4)

4) In Chapter 24 of Luke, Jesus Christ rebuked the false belief of the disciples that they had seen a ghost or a spirit. Jesus emphasized that he is not a spirit.

But they were terrified and affrighted, and supposed that they had seen a spirit. And he said unto them, Why are ye troubled? and why do thoughts arise in your hearts? Behold my hands and my feet, that it is I myself: handle me, and see; for a spirit hath not flesh and bones, as ye see me have. And when he had thus spoken, he shewed them his hands and his feet. (Luke 24: 37-40)

God is a spirit (John 4:24). God is invisible (1 Tim 1:17).

BEFORE ABRAHAM WAS I AM

Does this mean that Christ had pre-existence?

John 8:56-58 says,

“ Your father Abraham rejoiced to see my day: and he saw it, and was glad. Then said the Jews unto him, Thou art not yet fifty years old, and hast thou seen Abraham? Jesus said unto them, Verily, verily, I say unto you, Before Abraham was, I am.”

Christ-is-God believers would say “ Isn’t this a clear proof that Christ was already there even before Abraham?”

However, if we parallel our understanding on this verse with the native understanding of the Pharisees then altogether we would not understand Jesus. Jesus said to these Pharisees, “Why do ye not understand my speech? even because ye cannot hear my word.” (Jn 8:43).

Let us find out what Jesus Christ meant by His words.

“Your father Abraham rejoiced to see my day: and he saw it, and was glad.” Does this verse compel us to understand that Abraham during his time already saw Jesus Christ? The answer is NO. The book of Hebrews in Chapter 11 gives us insight in understanding this pronouncement of Jesus Christ. Thus,

“These all died in faith, not having received the promises, but having seen them afar off, and were persuaded of them, and embraced them, and confessed that they were strangers and pilgrims on the earth.” (Heb 11:13) (emphasis mine)

The promise being referred to is everlasting covenant(Gen 17:7) with the seed of Abraham which is none other than Christ. As written,

“Now to Abraham and his seed were the promises made. He saith not, And to seeds, as of many; but as of one, And to thy seed, which is Christ.” (Gal 3:16)

Thus, Abraham has seen the promise made by God to him concerning his seed which is Lord Jesus Christ. Jesus Christ DOES NOT say “Your father Abraham rejoiced to see me: and he was glad to see me” but rather say: “..rejoiced to see my day: and he saw it, and was glad.

BEFORE ABRAHAM WAS I AM

Does this also mean that Christ was there already before Abraham? What is being referred to by the term “before”? Is it with respect to time? Or is it with respect to authority and position?

Again, the book of Hebrews gives meaningful insight. In Heb 5:5-6, the prophecy concerning Christ is discussed.

Christ is a priest after the order of Milchisedec as prophesied in the book of Psalm in Ps 110:4, thus,

“The LORD hath sworn, and will not repent, Thou art a priest for ever after the order of Melchizedek.”

Melchizedek happens to be the king of Salem, a priest of most high God who met Abraham and whom Abraham gave tenth of the spoil. Chapter 7 of the book of Hebrews asserts that Christ has priesthood that is not bound by levitical priesthood, i.e, the order of Aaron (the brother of Moses of which the Judaism is anchored). (Heb 7:11)
Hence, if there is a change in priesthood, there is a change in the law. (Heb 7:12) and the law should not be after carnal commandment but after the power of an endless life (verse 16).

Hence, in terms of priesthood, Christ is indeed before Abraham.

It makes a perfect sense why Lord Jesus Christ replied that he is before Abraham. The argument of the Pharisees was how they could be in bondage to any man and be made free if they are Abraham’s seed (John 8:33). This is tantamount to asking Jesus Christ of His authority to set anyone free (verse 32).

Second point: Being first with respect to time doesn’t warrant being first in order. There are instances in the bible that defeat this line of reasoning. Ismael was the first child of Abraham to his concubine Hagar yet the promise of eternal covenant was given to the lineage of Isaac. Esau was the first of the twin of Isaac but the blessing was given to Jacob.
Hence, granting without conceding that Christ existed before Abraham, the argument is pointless and invalid and it doesn’t answer the prime question of authority of Christ.

Is Jesus Christ mentioned as God in 1 John 5:20?

The verse says,

“And we know that the Son of God is come, and hath given us an understanding, that we may know him that is true, and we are in him that is true, even in his Son Jesus Christ. This is the true God, and eternal life.”

The argument of the Christ-is-God believers is that the one being referred to by the phrase “this is the true God” is Jesus Christ on the basis of nearest-antecedent-rule in grammar. Accordingly, the nearest subject to the pronoun “this” is Jesus Christ. Moreover, they also say that Jesus Christ is the “eternal life” (1 John 5:11) so the one being referred to by “eternal life” is the same being referred to by the phrase “this is the true God”.

Nearest Antecedent Rule

This grammar rule (I wonder if this rule really exists) is definitely invalid. One good example is the following sentences:
“X murdered Y. He was put in prison.”
Who was put in prison? X or Y? Does it make sense if the corpse of the murdered Y was put in prison?
How about the following sentences:
“X murdered Y. His remains lie in state at the funeral house.”
Now, who stays at the funeral house? Is it X or Y?

It is clear that we assign the subject to the pronoun based on the context of the sentences and NOT on the nearest-antecedent rule.
In Basic English Writing Composition Course, this ambiguity is corrected by adding words “former” and “latter” in order to clarify the meaning. The examples above should have been written as:
X murdered Y. The former was put in prison.
X murdered Y. The remains of the latter lie in state at the funeral house

How else should we understand this verse grammatically?

Grammatical Consistency

If we inspect the third person pronouns used in the verse, we should infer that these must be consistent.
“And we know that the Son of God is come, and hath given us an understanding, that we may know him that is true, and we are in him that is true, even in his Son Jesus Christ. This is the true God, and eternal life.”
What is being referred to by the pronouns “him” and “his” and “this”? It must be someone with a son named Jesus Christ. It is no other than the Father.

Compare spiritual things with spiritual

In order to understand God’s word, we must compare spiritual things with spiritual. As written,

“Which things also we speak, not in the words which man's wisdom teacheth, but which the Holy Ghost teacheth; comparing spiritual things with spiritual.” 1 Cor 2:13

The safest way to understand 1 John 5:20 is to compare the verse with other verses of the bible especially those written by Apostle John himself.
In John 17:3, Jesus Christ was speaking to the Father saying,

“And this is life eternal, that they might know thee the only true God, and Jesus Christ, whom thou hast sent”

Eternal life is knowing the Father as the only true God and Jesus Christ which was sent by the Father.

If we go back to 1 John 5:20, the main subject of the verse is knowing the Son of God, and knowing him that is true with a clue that He has a son named Jesus Christ.

If we consult the writings of Apostle John, who is this “true” that we should know? In John 8:25-27, Jesus Christ calls someone as “true”, thus,

“Then said they unto him, Who art thou? And Jesus saith unto them, Even the same that I said unto you from the beginning. I have many things to say and to judge of you: but he that sent me is true; and I speak to the world those things which I have heard of him. They understood not that he spake to them of the Father.”


THE ETERNAL LIFE

Christ-is-God believers especially the apologetics are fond of coining a descriptive phrase and assigning it to a PROPER NOUN that becomes an entity in itself. This is an extreme case of personification. One good example in layman’s lingo is the descriptive phrase “freedom of speech” which in many casual usage of the word becomes synonymous to “democracy”. However, “democracy” and “freedom of speech” are two different concepts. Although “freedom of speech” is associated in a democratic society but the key concept of democracy doesn’t say about “freedom of speech” but on system of governance.
Likewise, the apologetics insist that ETERNAL LIFE is CHRIST in 1 John 5:20 because Jesus is life (John 14:6). Accordingly, this eternal life is someone that we have seen and bear witness. (1 John 1:2).

In figures of speech, if X is Y, it doesn’t necessarily mean that Y is X. For instance, the statement “Time is gold” doesn’t not say that gold is time. The statement only wants to say that time is a precious as gold.

Similarly, when the bible says that Jesus is life, it doesn’t mean that life or eternal life is Jesus. It doesn’t make any sense at all if we loosely substitute and replace the phrase “eternal life” with “Jesus”.

Eternal life is a gift of God (Rom 6:23). It is a promise (1 John 2:25).
In John 17:1-3 and 1 John 5:20, we will inherit the ETERNAL LIFE by knowing the only true God who is no other than the Father and Lord Jesus Christ who is sent by the Father to us.

Why do we believe that Jesus Christ is human?

Explicit Points: (Formal declaration as article of faith)

1) Christ himself said that he is man.

John 8:40
Jesus said “But now ye seek to kill me, a man that hath told you the truth, which I have heard of God: this did not Abraham.”

2) Apostles said that Christ is man.

a. 1 Tim 2:5,
“For there is one God, and one mediator between God and men, the man Christ Jesus;”
This is a very strong declaration as proof that Christ is human.

b. Acts 2:22,
“Ye men of Israel, hear these words; Jesus of Nazareth, a man approved of God among you by miracles and wonders and signs, which God did by him in the midst of you, as ye yourselves also know:”

c. 1 Cor 15:21-22,
“For since by man came death, by man came also the resurrection of the dead. For as in Adam all die, even so in Christ shall all be made alive.”

d. Rom 5:15,
“But not as the offence, so also is the free gift. For if through the offence of one many be dead, much more the grace of God, and the gift by grace, which is by one man, Jesus Christ, hath abounded unto many.”

e. 1 Cor 15:47,
“The first man is of the earth, earthy; the second man is the Lord from heaven.”

f. Acts 13:38,
“Be it known unto you therefore, men and brethren, that through this man is preached unto you the forgiveness of sins:”

g. Hebrew 7:24,
“But this man, because he continueth ever, hath an unchangeable priesthood.”

h. Hebrew 10:12,
“But this man, after he had offered one sacrifice for sins for ever, sat down on the right hand of God;”

i. Acts 17:31
“Because he hath appointed a day, in the which he will judge the world in righteousness by that man whom he hath ordained; whereof he hath given assurance unto all men, in that he hath raised him from the dead.”


3) The prophecy concerning Christ says about a man.
Isaiah 53:3
“He is despised and rejected of men; a man of sorrows, and acquainted with grief: and we hid as it were our faces from him; he was despised, and we esteemed him not.”

4) A healed believer testified that Christ is man.
John 9:11
“He answered and said, A man that is called Jesus made clay, and anointed mine eyes, and said unto me, Go to the pool of Siloam, and wash: and I went and washed, and I received sight.”

5) A woman expected Christ, the messiah as man.
John 4:29
“Come, see a man, which told me all things that ever I did: is not this the Christ?”