You can apply your ‘infinity’ mathematics all you want. The bottom line is still the same: Christ’s humanity plays no part in the final outcome of who Christ was. It is redundant. The Bible tells me otherwise. Your last quote from me in your reply to Stan seems to be pointing out some heresy.
Christ’s humanity played a much bigger part than you are giving it credit for.
I’m giving to humanity what belong to humanity, and to his divinity what belongs to divinity. Even if he was divine and omnipresent in his divine nature, his human nature could not be omnipresent, Jesus could not be seen simultaneously at Jerusalem and Nazareth. Even today, while he is present with us because of his divinity, he will have to return on the clouds of the sky in order that his own human nature become visible for us. The human nature did not become divine, it did not become omnipresent.
Also Jesus’ divinity did not cancel his basic human needs: sleep, food, shelter. His human nature also did not become omniscient, the reason why Jesus could say that the day and hour of his coming is unknown to Him. Jesus was truly in a humiliated human status.
I affirm admit that humanity plays an important part in the final outcome of who Christ was. What I deny is the fact that it was a decisive part in the outcome of Christ’s person. His humanity, while weak in the battle with sin, while provoking a lot of suffering to Christ who was sanctified and perfected through suffering in temptations (Hebrews 5:7-9) had not the decisive part in the outcome of the battle with sin. Christ had not lived and battled with sin entirely at the level of his humanity, to the exclusion of any involvement of his divinity. It’s the Kenosis theory which, according to the page on Christian Apologetics & Research Ministry, states that Jesus gave up some of His divine attributes while He was a man here on earth. These attributes were omniscience, omnipresence, and omnipotence. Christ did this voluntarily so that He could function as a man in order to fulfill the work of redemption. Further, the article is saying The Kenosis theory is a dangerous doctrine because if it were true then it would mean that Jesus was not fully divine. If Jesus was not fully divine, then His atoning work would not be sufficient to atone for the sins of the world.
guibox - 19 October 2010 04:09 PM
Would divinity cry out in agony that God had abandoned Him?
Would divinity doubt and wish for the plan of salvation to be done any other way as to beg for the cup of suffering to pass from His lips?
No it would not. Humanity would.
It’s true that Christ’s divinity is not seen in the external manifestation of Christ’s agony on the cross in the sense that this agony was the direct expression of his divinity. Nevertheless, if this expression of Christ’s humanity is taken in the sense that his divinity was put aside and not involved in this suffering, it’s a very wrong conclusion. Christ’s divine nature was right there having an active role in sustaining his human nature to endure the suffering, preventing his humanity to be crushed under the burden of sin and God’s wrath against it.
Here is Ursinus’ commentary on Question 17 from the Heidelberg Catechism which he co-authored:
It was necessary that our Mediator should not only be a man, and one that was truly such, and perfectly righteous; but that he should also be God--the true and mighty God-and not an imaginary Deity, or one that was adorned with excellent gifts, above angels and men, as heretics suppose. The reasons for this are the following:
1. That he might, by the power of his Godhead, sustain, in his human nature, the infinite wrath of God against sin, and endure a punishment, which, although it were temporal as it respects its duration, was nevertheless infinite in greatness, dignity, and value. If our Mediator had been only a man, and had taken upon himself the burden of God’s wrath, he would have been crushed under its weight. It was necessary, therefore, that he should be possessed of infinite strength, and for this reason be God, that he might endure an infinite punishment, without sinking into despair, or being crushed under it.
guibox - 19 October 2010 04:09 PM
I will retract my previous view that Christ could have sinned as we define sin. Christ was hiding His divinity to live out as a man. Christ’s temptation by Satan was to give it all up and let His Divinity shine forth.In abandoning the plan of salvation and allowing us the recompense of our rebellion, Christ in His humanity without His connection to the Father, could have chosen this. Sin, perhaps, is a strong word to describe this.
Let me describe the argument as I hear it and address it according to my understanding, if my understanding is defective, I’ll be ready to be corrected.
Basically the idea is that Jesus’ temptation was a unique temptation in the sense that none of us is tempted to abandon our duty to save the world. In this view, the giving in to Satan’s temptation would result in something that’s so unique, so particular to Jesus as both human and divine that it could not match the definition we have for sin, because for us to sin would never involve letting our divine nature we don’t possess to “shine forth”. In this sense it’s improper to speak of Jesus being under the possibility of sinning, but he’s still under the possibility of failing to complete his mission of salvation.
What I see here is a nuanced view that doesn’t change the basic thesis, namely that Jesus could failed in accomplishing what he voluntarily took upon Himself to do. It leaves open the possibility of failure, and this is exactly what we rejected, the possibility of Jesus failing in any way, shape or form. In this sense, the retraction is a semantic adjustment in order to express more accurately the same idea, it’s not truly a change of views.
What I see to be affirmed is that Jesus’ basic task was to live his life without involving his divine nature into it, which, while nevertheless existent, would spoil his mission. In this view, giving in to Satan’s temptation would be exactly to let the divine nature involved in Christ’s mission, either by shining forth or by being involved in Christ’s suffering on the cross. The basic thesis is that it is a must to have Jesus living his earthly life exclusively at the level of his humanity, and his constant temptation was to cease living at this level and let his divinity interfere. For an evaluation of this view, see my previous post.
Here is one of my posts from Revival Sermons that was quoted from the ESV study Bible”
Humans have obviously been sinful ever since the
fall. Therefore, it is easy to assume that being sinful is
an essential, necessary part of being a “human being.”
But this is not true. Jesus was human and yet did not
sin. The fact that he became man reveals the nature of true
humanity. His humanity gives a glimpse of what our humanity
would be, were it not tainted with sin. He shows
that the problem with humanity is not that we are humans,
but rather that we are fallen. Jesus’ human nature
shows the potential of humanity as God intended. This
display of sinless humanity reaffirms God’s declaration
that creation in all its original dimensions (material and
spiritual), including humanity, is by divine definition very
good (Gen. 1:31).
Jesus’ humanity enables his representative obedience for
us. “Therefore, as one trespass led to condemnation for
all men, so one act of righteousness leads to justification
and life for all men. For as by the one man’s disobedience
the many were made sinners, so by the one man’s obedience
the many will be made righteous” (Rom. 5:18–19).
Because Jesus is truly human, his perfect life of obedience
and overcoming all temptations—culminating in his perfect
substitutionary death—can take the place of human
rebellion and failure.
Because of Jesus’ humanity, he can truly be a substitutionary
sacrifice for mankind. “Therefore he had to be
made like his brothers in every respect, so that he might
become a merciful and faithful high priest in the service
of God, to make propitiation for the sins of the people”
(Heb. 2:17). A man died on the cross when Jesus died, and
his death truly atones for the sin of human beings, whose
nature he shared.
Jesus’ humanity makes him the only effective mediator
between God and man: “For there is one God, and there
is one mediator between God and men, the man Christ
Jesus” (1 Tim. 2:5). Jesus’ divine and human natures enable
him to stand in the gap between fallen humans and
a holy God.
Jesus’ humanity enabled him to become a sympathetic
high priest who experientially understands the difficult
plight of humanity in a fallen world: “For we do not have a
high priest who is unable to sympathize with our weaknesses,
but one who in every respect has been tempted as
we are, yet without sin. Let us then with confidence draw
near to the throne of grace, that we may receive mercy
and find grace to help in time of need” (Heb. 4:15–16;
cf. Heb. 2:18).
Jesus’ humanity means he is a true example and pattern
for human character and conduct. “For to this you
have been called, because Christ also suffered for you, leaving
you an example, so that you might follow in his steps”
------------------------------------
And here was Guibox’s response to my post :
Good quotes Stan. It shows how Jesus was human, and why He needed to be human without needing to have the same nature as us to relate to and represent us. This quote particularly brings this out.
Quote
His humanity gives a glimpse of what our humanity
would be, were it not tainted with sin. He shows
that the problem with humanity is not that we are humans,
but rather that we are fallen. Jesus’ human nature
shows the potential of humanity as God intended. This
display of sinless humanity reaffirms God’s declaration
that creation in all its original dimensions (material and
spiritual), including humanity, is by divine definition very
good (Gen. 1:31).
---------------
So here Guibox is so heretical that he is agreeing with the ESV study Bible definition of Christ’s human nature.
Do you stand by your response Guibox?
Stan
I do stand by my response, Stan. I still like this passage.
So, anyone who agrees with the ESV study Bible’s definition of the nature of Christ is orthodox, and I don’t see any point of trying to push this further. If Guibox affirms this view, then he is indeed my brother in Christ.
So here Guibox is so heretical that he is agreeing with the ESV study Bible definition of Christ’s human nature.
Stan, you know that Ellen White said that Jesus made full atonement for our sins on the cross, while endorsing the investigative judgment which teaches an unfinished atonement and kicked Ballenger out because he affirmed a complete atonement on the cross. Now, there are two possibilities:
1. She changed his position, switching forth from affirming the complete atonement to denial of it. This is the less plausible explanation because it is not backed up by additional proof, either historical or theological.
2. She was consistent in her views, there is only an apparent contradiction between the two affirmations. When she affirmed that the atonement was finished, she had in mind the sacrifice for atonement, but not atonement itself was finished (see George Knight explanation for the use of the term finished atonement in QOD).
What this means? This means that you can’t judge Ellen White exclusively by something she affirms in a few places, her denials are as informative and decisive to establish her true view. Her denial of Christ’s finished atonement is still the position of the church. It’s simply untenable to take Ellen White’s affirmation from Desire of Ages and say “Praise to God, she’s affirming the finished atonement, tell the entire adventist world that their doctrine of atonement going up in heaven after 1844 is not Ellen White’s position”. I have great doubts, nay, I’m sure that nobody will believe you.
It’s good that the guibox affirms the statement from ESV you brought, but is he going to reject what he previously denied? His agreement with your quotation would be significant and would clear him of any charge of unorthodoxy if this affirmation cancels his denials. That he’s willing to agree with orthodox statements is as significant as Ellen White’s affirmation of the complete atonement, it could not cancel his rejection of the historical trinitarian creeds more than Ellen White’s positive affirmation of complete atonement cancels her rejection of complete atonement found in Great Controversy and in her dispute with Ballenger. Semantic agreement does not automatically mean real agreement.
Rather than asking guibox to agree with orthodox statements, ask him to adopt the trinitarian creeds and reject his previous affirmations regarding Jesus’ divine nature non-involvement in his earthly life ministry. Ask him to reject the Kenosis theory he believes in, ask for some substantial retractions rather than retractions that are mere semantical adjustments. And pay attention to Nabeel Qureshi and the gospel for muslims, as well as for us.
So, anyone who agrees with the ESV study Bible’s definition of the nature of Christ is orthodox, and I don’t see any point of trying to push this further. If Guibox affirms this view, then he is indeed my brother in Christ.
It’s not as simple Stan. Affirming a definition of ESV while rejecting the trinitarian creeds doesn’t bode well. Does ESV’ definition trumps the orthodox creeds? If it does, since when? Since when agreeing with a formulation is the same as agreeing with the content of it?
Let me present your argument: since guibox agrees with an orthodox statement, this means that he agrees with the authorial intent and content of that statement. At the same time, guibox had expressed his disagreement with the trinitarian creeds and rejected the view that Jesus’ divinity was involved in Christ’s mission, that Christ lived and died as any human being would do, his divinity being kept aside and prevented to play a role in his mission.
At the same time, it’s important to understand that those who wrote the ESV Bible Study had no intention of contradicting the historical trinitarian creeds, less to affirm a mission of salvation in which Jesus’ divinity was not involved, dying as a man, suffering exclusively as a man. This means that the authors of the ESV Study Bible would not agree if somebody will advance the thesis that their trinitarian statement is in agreement with a denial of the trinitarian creeds. They will not agree with this view, they will make clear that what they wrote is in harmony and could not be taken apart or as a replacement of the trinitarian creeds.
This certainly leads to the conclusion that the authors of the ESV Study Bible had something different in mind than somebody who’s in disagreement with the trinitarian creeds has. With such a person, if that person is willing to adopt their statements, they will have only an agreement on the surface, a semantic agreement, in form, not in essence. When put side by side, the authors of ESV will affirm the trinitarian creeds while the other person’s disagreement will place them on the other side of the fence.
Stan, what I’m hearing from you is that you can disagree all the way you want with the trinitarian creeds, reduce Christ’s life and mission to the level of living a human life while his divinity is out of the picture, and still be considered orthodox. Please reconsider your position.
Gabriel, I’m not saying that divinity had no part in Christ’s life. Of course it did. What I’m saying is that He became human for a reason. It was to experience what we experience. It was to keep God’s Holy law perfectly as a man to fulfill His just requirements of the law. Now, don’t take this to mean that I am simply making Christ as our example like those who adhere to sinless perfection do. Even though Christ’s divinity was present and part of who He was, It was in His humanity that He was ‘tempted as we are’, that He struggled with doubt, fear, anguish and pain. All of these human attributes were fulfillment of Isaiah’s prophecies of the Messiah. In this experience, Christ relates to us. We cannot relate to the divinity of Christ. We have not that nature. We can only see the human. We can only relate to the human.
Yes, I will agree with your statement and retract my previous one that Christ’s divinity was not part of the suffering of the cross. Obviously Jesus was taking the sins of the whole world upon Him. No human could handle that.
I still stand by my view that the plan of salvation could have been abandoned had Jesus wanted to. Satan knew that He had to try to appeal to the human weakness of Christ to let us die. He did not have to suffer the cross. He did not have to go through the pain. He didn’t want to. This is why He said, ‘Father if it be thy will, let this cup pass from me’. Jesus knew that to have us reconciled to Him there was no alternative. This was not divine infalliblility here. This was human doubt, anguish, sorrow and fear. This was love making this choice not predetermined divine nature that is going through the motions to an inevitable conclusion. Despite the human doubt, Christ loved us so much that He chose the cross when He didn’t have to. He knew what it meant. . He COULD have walked away. He had every right to. But He didn’t.
... Stan, what I’m hearing from you is that you can disagree all the way you want with the trinitarian creeds, reduce Christ’s life and mission to the level of living a human life while his divinity is out of the picture, and still be considered orthodox. Please reconsider your position.
Here’s is a modified version of your statement: (my additions are in bold font)
... Stan, what I’m hearing from you is that you can disagree all the way you want with the trinitarian creeds, reduce Christ’s life and mission to the level of living a perfect human life while putting his divinity completely out of the picture, and somehow still be considered orthodox. Please reconsider your position.
Gabriel
How do I express this in a kind way and yet fully?
Orthodoxy teaches that Christ was fully God AND fully Man at all times, from His Holy incarnation (conception) until His final return at the “end of time”. This (I can’t think of stronger words or I would use them here...) “absolutely unique” combination of the Divine and the carnal was necessary and foundational to His being qualified as our sin-bearer and the accomplish-er of a full atonement for us all. All this was the purpose and grace of God the Father “… given us in Christ Jesus before the beginning of time.” 2 Timothy 1:9 (NIV)
Is there any chance that the derogation or “setting aside” of Christ’s divinity as being necessary for what He accomplished is in anyway linked to the SDA doctrine of perfectionism? In other words, if Jesus Christ could live a perfect life and offer ONLY that perfect life as the full payment for the sins of humanity, then perfection is not only desirable, but perhaps attainable?
As a non and never-been SDA, I must respectfully say that this was a concept that struck my heart when I read your last post.
There is no malice meant here. If there is any good in it then may all the Glory be to God! If in it there is error and sin, then I take full credit and ask that God may forgive me this transgression, for the sake of His Holy Son, my Shepherd, my Savior…
Is there any chance that the derogation or “setting aside” of Christ’s divinity as being necessary for what He accomplished is in anyway linked to the SDA doctrine of perfectionism? In other words, if Jesus Christ could live a perfect life and offer ONLY that perfect life as the full payment for the sins of humanity, then perfection is not only desirable, but perhaps attainable?
Hi Dan,
I think that there is a strong link there. Current views set aside for the moment, the early Adventists were fully Arian. They were anti-supernatural, basically unsophisticated early protestant liberals. They put Christ completely on the same level as us, even to the point of saying that He had a sinful nature. They rejected Christianity for basically a managable system of ethics. I think that this background is one of the reasons that the moral influence theory of the atonement is so attractive to Adventists today. If you read J. Gresham Machen’s Christianity and Liberalism, you would have nearly a full refutation of early Adventism, even though he was writing it to his own denomination, the PCUSA.
Is there any chance that the derogation or “setting aside” of Christ’s divinity as being necessary for what He accomplished is in anyway linked to the SDA doctrine of perfectionism? In other words, if Jesus Christ could live a perfect life and offer ONLY that perfect life as the full payment for the sins of humanity, then perfection is not only desirable, but perhaps attainable?
Hi Dan
What I can say with certainty is that if indeed Jesus could live a perfect human life with his divinity “set aside” perfection is attainable. Still, in guibox’s case, this possibility is canceled by the assumption that Jesus lived this perfect life in the perfect humanity of Adam before the fall. Having a fallen human nature is too great a disadvantage to believe that perfection is attainable. According to the teachings of those considered in the camp of “new theology”, perfection is impossible due to the fallen aspect of the human nature. It would be a wrong conclusion to affirm that guibox’s views make perfection attainable. Nevertheless the view of Kenosis, of “setting aside” of Christ’s divinity in his redemptive work is a common view shared by adventists who believe as the early adventists that Jesus human nature was fallen in the sense of having sinful tendencies. In this case, yes, the adventist version of Kenosis makes perfection attainable.
Rather the difficulty of placing adventist’s views of Christ’s in the orthodox camp comes from another angle. Nate already spoke about early adventists as liberals and indeed I was very much surprised when I had read Christianity and Liberalism. What the current adventism retained from the early adventism’s liberal anti-supernaturalism was the denial of the existence of the human soul, the rejection of man’s dual spiritual-material nature. The common point adventists have with liberals even today is found in their belief that spirit is the life-force, something that animates the body, nothing spiritual which can have a distinct existence or which can exist apart from the material body, but something that is intrinsically a part of the biological material life of the body. When they speak about Jesus human nature, Jesus humanity, adventists are consistent and deny that Jesus had a human spirit. So, from the start, you have a different view of what Jesus’ humanity encompassed, certainly a humanity that doesn’t include a human soul, only the biological energy animating the body.
So, when the adventists affirm that they believe that Jesus was fully human, they had in mind their view of humanity as excluding the existence of the soul. This raises from the beginning the question if this definition could be acceptable as orthodox, since it has so much in common with the Arianism and Appolinarianism. When someone reads how Arianism and Appolinarianism define Christ’s humanity, he will be amazed how both views required Jesus’ humanity to be without a human souls
Apollinaris who was a man of piety and ability, and highly esteemed even by those who disagreed with him, propounded the theory of the Person of Chirst which bears his name. Apollinarianism, assuming the Platonic distinction between body (soma), animal soul (psuche), and rational soul or mind (nous), as three distinct element in man, viewed Christ as having a human body and an animal soul, but not a human rational soul, as the seat of rationality and intelligence. Instead of a human rational soul, the divine Word of God took its place and was the divine nature in Christ. Thus Christ was not completely human. Apollinaris was a strong opponent of Arius but arrived at a similar view of the Person of Chirst as Arius. Arius appears to have held that the human nature of Christ consist merely of His body, with which the Word entered into union, so that He had no human soul. And he was driven to this by the exigency of his position. For since the Logos of Arius was a created being, and the soul of Christ, if He had one, must also have been created, the absurity would arise if there were two created intelligences in one Person, a thing that is inconceivable. But if the manhood of Christ consists merely of a body, this difficulty is evaded. Apollinaris borrowed a part of his antagonist’s theory, but with the view of effectually guarding against his conclusions that the Son of God was a lesser God. Apollinaris assumed the Platonic tripartite view of man’s nature, according to which man is composed of body, animal soul, and rational soul. Allowing Christ the possession of an animal soul, Apollinaris made the Logos take the place of the rational soul. His motive was to obviate the Arian conception of Christ, in investing the rational soul with the attribute of unchangeableness, and consequent sinlessness. And no doubt his theory does this effectually. But his theory stands or falls with the validity of Platonic tripartite division.
Well, to counteract Appolinarianism the church had to reject the tripartite division and affirm the bipartite view of Jesus’ humanity. Also it had to reject what was the Arian view of Christ as having only a human body without human soul, which was essential for Arianism.
Consequently, when the councils affirmed that Jesus was “fully human” they set their definition of Jesus full humanity in opposition to the Arian and Appolinarian views of Christ’s humanity. They were very specific in this definition, they rejected as heretical any view of Christ’s humanity that doesn’t include the human soul.
Just one quick example, a fragment of the Chalcedionian creed, adopted in 451:
We, then, following the holy Fathers, all with one consent, teach men to confess one and the same Son, our Lord Jesus Christ, the same perfect in Godhead and also perfect in manhood; truly God and truly man, of a reasonable [rational] soul and body;
Two things become evident when the historical context of what Arianism and Appolinarianism stood for is taken into account: the Chalcedonian creed clearly affirmed that when they speak of Jesus as “truly man” they understand “a reasonable [rational] soul and body, against the denial of the existence of the soul found in the heresies of Arianism and Appolinarianism.
It should become evident why adventists cannot subscribe to these orthodox creeds as long as they believe that human nature consist exclusively of a body animated by a life-principle. They could not subscribe to the Chalcedon creed with it’s definition of “truly man”.
Their theologians are not stupid when they reject the trinitarian creeds as pagan, because they understand that their Trinity is not the orthodox Trinity. Look at this link.
A major development [in Adventism] since 1972 has been the quest to articulate biblical presuppositions grounding a biblical doctrine of the Trinity, clearly differentiated from the dualistic presuppositions that undergird the traditional creedal statements
A more substantial development [in Adventism] was the continued quest to articulate a biblical doctrine of the Trinity, clearly differentiated from the Greek philosophical presuppositions that undergirded the traditional creedal statements
In conclusion, the orthodox creeds were especially formulated to classify as heresy the denial of the existence of Christ’s human soul, which was essential for Arianism and Appolinarianism. The historical context is sufficient to arrive at the conclusion that the adventist view of Jesus’ humanity was condemned as heresy by the orthodox church. In spite of the favorable evaluation they received from Walter Martin as being orthodox on the Trinity, his methodology was faulty because he had not evaluated adventist’s views of Jesus humanity according to the Chalcedonian definition and also closed his eyes to what was the still living element of Arianism in adventism, their view that Jesus human nature doesn’t have a soul, but only a body. He accepted a heretical description of Jesus’ humanity as orthodox, ignoring the historical and universal definition of orthodoxy.
Even if you could prove the immortal soul of man from the scriptures, it would not apply to Christ at all.
Christ’s divinity would not be linked with an inherent immortality. His divinity IS the immortality. Take the opposite view. If we had Christ the Man/God and took away His divinity (His immortal essence), would He have an immortal soul (immortality) left behind? No, it makes no sense. His immortality is derived by who He is, not what the human body inherently possesses.
Even if you could prove the immortal soul of man from the scriptures, it would not apply to Christ at all.
Christ’s divinity would not be linked with an inherent immortality. His divinity IS the immortality. Take the opposite view. If we had Christ the Man/God and took away His divinity (His immortal essence), would He have an immortal soul (immortality) left behind? No, it makes no sense. His immortality is derived by who He is, not what the human body inherently possesses.
Correction: inherent immortality means no end and also no beginning. Jesus was divine without a beginning, his immortality was inherent. Human soul is created, has a beginning in time, also depends on God to be sustained by his providence.
it’s telling that adventists first distort the view of their theological opponents in order to efficiently knock them down.
Adventism is correct when they identify the scapegoat, being the devil, their father. My scapegoat is Jesus.
While I disagree with Larry’s statements above, I realize that his reaction is partially, and I mean partially, justified, because putting Satan in Jesus places when it comes to the final and decisive role that atonement plays is giving to Satan an honor and taking from Jesus an honor that is essential for his identity as Savior. His honor of carrying our sins and making perfect, full atonement for them is a honor that Jesus doesn’t impart with anyone, and to introduce Satan in the scheme of atonement is insulting at best and a denial of Jesus’ identity as Savior at worst.
“You belong to your father, the devil, and you want to carry out your father’s desires. He was a murderer from the beginning, not holding to the truth, for there is no truth in him. When he lies, he speaks his native language, for he is a liar and the father of lies.” John 8
When the SDA claims satan is the Christian scapegoat, they are lying. That is because they are deceived. Apparently they are carrying out their father’s desires!
Scripture says the scapegoat, being part of the Day of Atonement in the Law, points to the substance:
“Therefore do not let anyone judge you by what you eat or drink, or with regard to a religious festival, a New Moon celebration or a Sabbath day. These are a shadow of the things that were to come; the reality, however, is found in Christ.” Col 2
SDA’s would have to change this scripture to say that the reality is found in Satan. And somebody will be found to be a liar for adding to His flawless word. Who is to stop them from doing their father’s work?
It is a real problem, having a deceived prophetess and all.
“evildoers and impostors will go from bad to worse, deceiving and being deceived.”—2 Timothy 3
