I grappled for a few minutes with the titling of this article, eventually resolving to calling it “An argument for the divinity of Christ.” What essentially follows is not an apologetics discussion where I lay out in detail the opposition’s argument before proceeding to refute it, but rather a general refutation of the central idea behind a certain belief in some Christian circles that rejects the full divinity of the Son of God, by misconstruing the meaning of such epithets as “begotten”.
Satan’s Charge in the Great Controversy
In the great controversy, Satan charges that God is as selfish as he is, claiming that the law is an expression of selfishness and that true, unselfish love cannot exist in the universe1. God’s response to this charge is revealed at Calvary, where Christ, “being in the form of God, thought it not robbery to be equal with God, but made himself of no reputation, and being found in fashion as a man, humbled himself unto death.”2
Now, the death of Christ on the cross served 2 purposes, it redeemed man’s failure providing a way of escape for him, and also refuted the charge of Satan that God could not rob himself of his glory and exaltation. Regarding this, the 19th century theologian, Charles Beecher writes:
The principles and arguments of the rebellion were subtle, specious, and difficult to refute. In refusing to deny himself for the good of others Lucifer affirmed that he was imitating God. The Holy Spirit represents him as saying, “I will ascend, I will be as God.” God is almighty, he reasoned, and nothing can happen but by his permission, and therefore self-denial is with him impossible. There is no self-denial in having one’s own will and way perfectly and forever. But if God is incapable of self-denial, why should it be required of his first-born, his image[Beecher erroneously argues that Satan is the firstborn but nonetheless let’s continue]? If self-denial would be an imperfection in the Deity, it would be an imperfection in the representative of Deity. The representative would not correspond to the Deity, but be opposite to him and contrary.
Redeemer and redeemed, CHAPTER 13, PG 140
The Implication of Christ’s Eternity
If Christ, the Son of God, has a “beginning of days”, and was created by the Father or had root in the Father as this belief asserts, the implication is that there was a moment in eternity past that he(Christ) was not there — no matter how remote that period is asserted to be. No palliation will suffice here. He has origins like every creature, only in a higher sense. Therefore, in the giving of the Son, who is a creature, the Father manifests a species of selfishness— He will preserve himself at all costs, even at the cost of the life of His Son. It lends credence to the charge of Satan that self-denial is impossible with God, and is therefore not to be required in the creature.
But if the Son is eternal, and thus “hath no beginning of days, nor end of life”3, but is the express image of the Father(in character and personality), a co-sharer of eternity with him4, having in himself a life original, unborrowed and underived from anyone including the Father5, the very giving of himself in his incarnation, for the redemption of man — is a refutation of the charges of Satan. The throne of God is freed of that charge of Satan, and God can be justified in requiring that the law of self-sacrificing love be the law of the universe.
- The Holy Bible, King James Version (Nashville: Thomas Nelson, 1987), Job 2:4 ↩︎
- The Holy Bible, King James Version (Nashville: Thomas Nelson, 1987), Philipians 2:4-6 ↩︎
- The Holy Bible, King James Version (Nashville: Thomas Nelson, 1987), Hebrews 7:3;Micah 5:2. ↩︎
- The Holy Bible, King James Version (Nashville: Thomas Nelson, 1987), Micah 5:2;Proverbs 8:3. ↩︎
- Ellen G. White, The Desire of Ages (Oakland, CA: Pacific Press Publishing Association, 1898), p. 530, para. 3. ↩︎
I always lean towards to this big picture for the said belief seems to emphasize to absolute transcendence of the only one God who cannot relate with His creatures except through one less than Him. This idea really harks back to early Christian controversies and also the fact that current proponents ignore the general philosophical arguments on God’s nature that undergirded such conclusions yet imagine their position as unique is always mind boggling.
There is really nothing new under the sun. One important principle I’ve recently come to see and learn is at the heart of what you mentioned at the end there — trying to understand the assumptions behind the question or assertion being made by someone. The argument can often be satisfactorily answered by dealing with the assumptions behind the assertion. In this case, if the philosophical argument can be disconstructed and shown to be in error, then their argument falls apart