Review of Christian Apologetics: A Comprehensive Case for Biblical Faith by Douglas Groothuis. In chapter 21 Defending the Incarnation, Groothuis states that “in this chapter, we will pursue the best explanation for the identity of Jesus.”
Before explaining the incarnation, Groothuis defends the deity of Christ. He quotes C. S. Lewis’ famous Lord, Liar, or Lunatic argument from Mere Christianity called the “God or a bad man” argument.
Legendary Claims
Groothuis refutes the legendary argument about Jesus’ claim to deity by arguing that the posthumous metaphysical claims are usually done many decades or even centuries after the person’s death as in the case of Buddha. Jesus was noted as God by eyewitnesses
Jesus as a Guru
Groothuis refutes the Jesus as Guru argument who taught a pantheistic of a universal and impersonal force. Deepak Chopra presents Jesus this way: Once we see Jesus as a teacher of enlightenment, faith changes in its focus. You don’t need to have faith in the Messiah or his mission. Instead, you have faith in the vision of higher consciousness (the universal deity). These gurus typically use esoteric methods which obviously, Jesus did not.
Jesus as a Bad Man: Deceiver
Groothuis argues: If Jesus knew full well he was not “one with the Father” but claimed to be nevertheless, he would have been a liar of the highest magnitude since his immediate disciples, as all orthodox Christians ever since, ended up being persecuted and many martyred.
Jesus as Deceived: Idiosyncratic or Mad
The idea that Jesus was wrong about his deity but right about most all other things---even brilliant on moral matters---is extremely unlikely, Groothuis believes. Was Jesus mad or insane? Even his family on one occasion accused him of being insane in Mark 3:20-21. They were mistaken because of the circumstances and the controversy Jesus was stirring up. Later, his half-brother James recognize Jesus’ deity in James 1:1.
The Pharisees accuse Jesus of being demon possessed and insane in John 10:20. Historian Will Durant states that the Gospel writers wrote of Jesus “despite the… references of some auditors to his possible insanity” …. “They record many incidents that mere inventors would have concealed” (Caesar and Christ, vol. 2, The Story of Civilization, p. 557).
The Rational Coherence of the Incarnation
Grooduis quotes John Hicks who denies the incarnation and the hypostatic union of Christ: “The orthodox task is to spell out in an intelligible way the idea of someone having both a fully divine nature, i.e. having all the essential divine attributes, and at the same time a fully human nature, i.e. having all the essential human attributes” (The Metaphor of God Incarnate: Christology in a Pluralistic Age, p. 48). Grooduis also quotes the Chalcedon Creed in A.D. 451which defends the hypostatic union of Christ: “complete in Godhead and complete in manhood, truly God and truly man…apart from sin.”
The Incarnation as Paradox
Soren Kierkegaard called the incarnation “the absolute paradox.” Grooduis states that a paradox only appears as contradictory. Gordon Clark said a paradox is “a charley horse between the ears” that needs to be worked out, not lived with. Grooduis calls the incarnation “a hopeful paradox.”
The Metaphysics of The Incarnation
Groothuis has proven that the incarnation is biblically orthodox in the Chalcedonian formulation, how he will prove that the incarnation is logically possible or coherent. While an object cannot be both only be spherical and only square, and object could be a circle and have a square within it. Gordon Lewis and Bruce Demarest write: As a circle encompasses a square the two figures together form a more complex geometrical design. The whole complex patter has two natures with both the attributes of the circle and the attributes of the square. We need not contradict ourselves in reference to the complex design if we affirm that some of the attributes of the complex design is not thereby divided. The two “natures” need not be confused. The circle remains a circle; the square within it remains a square. The one “circle-square design” has two distinct natures (Integrative Theology, 2:349).
Grooduis also uses the idea that human beings are both material and immaterial to explain the incarnation. Humans have bot a material and an immaterial nature, but they are not thereby two persons. My brain weighs a certain amount, but my mind weights nothing. This is not a contradiction, because I am speaking of two different aspects of my personhood…The analogy helps explain how Jesus’ deity and humanity can coexist in the same person without contradiction. I am two substances (mind and body) that nevertheless make up my one person.
In the kenoticism, Jesus did not forfeit any attributes, he temporarily suspended the employment of some of his divine attributes, but without ontologically losing these attributes. For example, Michael Jordan might play a pickup basketball game with some junior high children in Chicago. In order to have fun with the lesser players, he would voluntarily suspend the use of some of his exemplary basketball skills. He would continue to possess those powers, but they would be held in check in order to play basketball with the children. However, at time Jordan might decide to dazzle the kids by showing this true stuff. Similarly, Jesus would sometimes declare that he had forgiven a person’s sins (Mark 2:1-10) or would receive worship from his followers (John 20:24-28). These are both uniquely divine prerogatives.