As far as where you "mischaracterize", I agree that the formulation of the doctrine into a creed is a harmonization of several distinct points that are found in scripture. It sounded like you were saying that those who already hold this doctrine then twist and redefine other scripture points. If this is what you are saying then I disagree.
One example: The Bible NEVER says that God is unable to "become" a man. It doesn't even say that God is not a man unless you cut off the end of that verse ("that he should lie").
Correct quote from the Bible: "God is not a man THAT he should lie."
Incorrect quote: "God is NOT a man." ----let's not take things out of context. Taking things out of context is twisting and manipulating scripture.
I've said it before, but I think that I might have been unclear: I am not interested in arguing for the validity of the Nicene Creed, but rather the individual elements within it. Having said that, that creed was man-made and NOT God-breathed. I am much more interested in discussing its key points...
Why?
Because acceptance or denial of the creed only affects ones fellowship with other believers (that is what its original purpose was). On the other hand to deny certain elements of the creed such as the deity of Jesus, the work of the Holy Spirit, the virgin birth, etc, is to deny the key essentials of the Christian faith. If you don't believe like a Christian then one can validly ask if you are one.
This is NOT to say that you are not saved if you believe JCING is correct. On the other hand, if you believe that Christians cannot today have a genuine personal relationship with Jesus (as was indeed taught in TWI), then how will you respond when Jesus tells you, "I never knew you."? (See Matthew 7:21-24).
Someone said something about the use of terms such as orthodoxy, heresy, and truth. Why does my use of such terms cause the discussion to no longer be "honest"? I would be lying to you if I told you that I didn't believe that JCING is heresy, because I believe that it is.
I should briefly digress for clarity: I can identify four types of doctrinal error discussed in the Bible:
1) mistake
2) error
3) heresy
4) damnable heresy
Mistakes and Errors are made all the time. I have no doubt that I believe in some mistakes and even errors. Let me take a silly example that you might relate to: I believe (still do) that Jesus died on a Wednesday. But if I am wrong that would be a mistake. My belief in this, or lack thereof, does not in any way affect my level of faith in God or my ability to live for Him.
Errors are wrong teachings that are wrong enough that believing in them hinders a persons faith in God. For example, if you believed that God wants everyone to be sick, then you would never dare have the the faith to pray for God to heal you.
Heresies are wrong teachings that drive people away from obedience to God. Believing a heresy would cause a person to do something that is contrary to God's will. I think that VPW's private teachings about adultery caused many who believed them to commit sin. This doctrine was a heresy.
A damnable heresy is a doctrine that is inconsistent with the Gospel itself. To fully embrace a damnable heresy is to reject the truth of the Gospel. Can Christians believe in damnable heresies. If you believe in once saved always saved then I would have to say yes. I do too. Thus, I believe that many born-again Christians embrace damnable heresies.
Concerning the distinction of wills observable in Jesus' prayer in the garden of Gethsemane being some supposed defeater for the deity of Christ, someone should point out that historical Christian orthodoxy holds that Jesus Christ has two, divine and human, wills, similarly as he has two, divine and human, natures.
As far as where you "mischaracterize", I agree that the formulation of the doctrine into a creed is a harmonization of several distinct points that are found in scripture. It sounded like you were saying that those who already hold this doctrine then twist and redefine other scripture points. If this is what you are saying then I disagree.
Yes, that is what I'm saying. I have no problem with civilly disagreeing.
the point is that I think that a person can still have an honest discussion on this topic while believing that the Trinity is Orthodox (right belief) and that to deny it is heretical.
I posit that to deny the Trinity IS heretical.
To deny the deity of Christ is on the edge of damnable heresy, depending on what you then say about Jesus.
I think that when I was saved at the young age of four, I did not call Jesus God. But I did believe in the sum and substance of what it means to believe that He is God. I called him Lord, and not just the Lord, but MY Lord. As a four year old, I said to him (Jesus) that He was the boss of me. He is also the Savior of Me.
Do you believe that Jesus is the Boss and Savior of You? Then, you must logically believe that you need a savior... but when you say that you need a Savior, do you mean merely that you need help because you got caught? Jesus is not just our Savior from death and from sin, He is our Savior from ourselves!
Even as a 4 year old I understood that I often do bad things. I need someone to deliver me from the penalty of these actions... but I also need Him to deliver me from my future actions.
Have you asked Jesus to forgive you for the sins that you might commit in the future? If He is your savior then He already has.
I believe that many who embrace TWI doctrine ARE truly saved, but then there are also many that are NOT.
If you think that salvation came when you came to a mere mental acceptance of the facts about the resurrection and also ascribed the title of "lord" to Jesus, then you are sorely in error.
Romans 10:9 says that we must "believe in your heart". Not merely mental is it?
If TWI charged $100 per student for the PFAL Class - how much would they charge a family of three after finding out the mother is expecting - - or is that believing?
but if you are REALLY believing shouldn't you BELIEVE for twins? but why not stop there... someone else's believing is "stronger" than yours cause they get triplets.... man, with this logic I guess the family that had octuplets need to be put on the BOT!!
Not to be to blunt, but what are you talking about?
I think you are mischaracterizing the doctrine of the trinity... let me try to briefly summarize it. (Other trinitarians can speak up if they disagree with my summarizings....
1. There is One and only one God.
2. The Bible shows clearly that Jesus is God, The Father is God, and that the Holy Spirit is God.
3. These three characters (Jesus, the Father, and the HS) are distinct in will but one in essense.
are you saying that jesus is god???????
"concerning that day and hour nobody knows, neither the angels of the heavens
NOR THE SON, but only the father." {matt.24:36}
if they were both the same jesus would've known the day and the hour.
To say that Jesus is God (that is what I am saying) is not to say that he is the Father. He certainly is not THE Father, as the verse you quoted demonstrates.
Now, I accept Jesus' divinity unequivocally, and his eternal existence. Where I balk at trinitarian dogma is the notion of the Holy Spirit as a distinct person of the Trinity. I see him as a descriptive aspect of God, much like "the Almighty" that describes that aspect of his divine nature. I'll need help to see him as a distinct person of the Trinity.
Evan,
More than in any post I have ever made anywhere to anyone, I hope I can say something here to you that hits home.
The Holy Spirit is identified in Scripture as a divine person, but he is so identified more sparsely than the Father and the Son. 1 Corinthians 12: 4-6, Ephesians 4:4-6, and 2 Corinthians 13:14, for instance, identify the three divine persons, naming them and juxtaposing them in a way that indicates distinction from one another. The Holy Spirit really cannot be a renaming of the Father in such passages.
I am speculating, but I think your problem might have at least two significant elements. The first element is a negative one: A metaphor is lacking by which we can think about the person of the Holy Spirit in terms of something in our own experience. There is something communicated to us about personhood when Scripture speaks to us about the Father and the Son, because we understand something about fathers and sons. Similarly, we recognize (without engaging in much thought about it) an aspect of personhood in various terms (e.g. creator, king, judge) Scripture uses to refer to God . But what is spirit? The word does not elicit an analogy to a person in our experience. Thus, theologians and apologetes generally demonstrate the Holy Spirit's personhood in an inductive fashion, showing that the Holy Spirit has personal qualites, and thus personhood, by citing scriptures that indicate he speaks, directs, can be grieved or lied to, etc.
Secondly, Wierwille put some aberrant ideas about a distinction between the Holy Spirit and holy spirit into Wayfers’ minds. Wierwille, as you know, taught there is a Holy Spirit who is the giver, and holy spirit which is his gift. In Wierwille’s pneumatology, the gift holy spirit is not really even a singular entity, since it is an impersonal whatever that is created in each individual Christian at the new birth. Wierwille’s pneumatology entails numerous holy spirits, since it involves individual creations within multiple Christians. What becomes of these things when Wayfers die, and the creations in them go back to God? Do these creations retain individuation? Or, do they become de-individualized and absorbed into a single collective?
I think whatever in Wierwille’s position was not a mere parroting of Bullinger probably was informed by the way in which Wierwille viewed the new birth. My own view, which I hold somewhat tentatively, is that regeneration might involve the creation of a new human spirit or a reconstitution of a fallen human spirit, but is certainly not a creation of what Scripture is referring to when Scripture uses the words Holy Spirit. What comes about or is reborn in man at regeneration is part of man, and is to be continually renewed through the work of the Holy Spirit into the image of the Lord whom man beholds. In a new, or perhaps reconstituted nature, Christians can partake of the communicable attributes of God, but remain creatures who are in no ontological sense what God is.
The Holy Spirit is a singular person who indwells all the regenerate, and, among other things, relates the deep things of God and the deep things of man. A helpful analogy concerning how the single person of the Holy Spirit indwells all Christians might be a single ocean's filling of all crevices, trenches, caverns, etc. that exist in the ocean’s floor.
what if I say Jesus was a man but when he received the reward of Christ he became a God but less than the God the creater of the heaven in the earth our father in truth
Jesus Christ when he die for us he re-created all things that his father first created because of the coming sin by the first Adam
making a hope for all things to be reborn in due time
now one day I will be born into a God too as Christ was because the love Jesus gave us by dying for us
note in Gnostic books we read things like three power man who is Christ
this is the second Adam who was like the first Adam
created with a living body, a living soul, and a a living spirit
but we were created by our mother's with a living body, a living soul, and a a dead spirit
but Christ came to re-created the seed in us the spiritual life if we just believe in him by a life style of confessing with our life that Jesus Christ is our Lord and Savior and that he rose from the dead as we can
...I can appreciate what the later creedal setters were trying to accomplish – to get all these dverse, motley movements on the same page. To standardize the ideas and the various writings into one. While such attempts have their advantages, they unfortunately also have their drawbacks.
I encourage people on either side of this debate go further back, to exploring the rough-about-the-edges, messy and even weird "raw material" that circulated throughout Christian movements before much of it became standardized and homogenized and canonized and bastardized and Simonized and ossified and any other thing that could occur to a religion in the course of several centuries.
The writings of the Ante-Nicene Fathers, the Dead Sea Scrolls, and the Nag Hammadi Library (to name a few sources) provide fertile ground for personal exploration and contemplation...
very well said, Danny, as usual
and to add...i would also encourage us to go further back into all the wonderully messy strands of jewish thought
its said that "one cant be a good christian without first becomng a good jew"
which, of course, is not the same as getting familiar with a few mannerisms and idioms
but delving into the deeply mystic raw material of the aboriginal philosophies, stories and traditions that jesus himself came out of
so often, in TWI and other modern Christian dialogue
it seems the understanding of pre-christian jewish thought is flattened and reduced to a few cleanly-explained monolithic legalistic styles of groups
...which then, of course, tends to reflect in our understanding and unpackaging of christianity
Both of you have some very interesting points! I've often wondered about what went on in the heads of believers in the early days of Christianity. It's hard for me to imagine what a major upheaval philosophically it might have been for any Hebrews that came to Christ…I think that would be fun to read up on some of those early Christian writings and even stuff from the pre-Christian Jewish frame-of-thought. Checking out things from another point of view can be very enlightening.
Someone said something about the use of terms such as orthodoxy, heresy, and truth. Why does my use of such terms cause the discussion to no longer be "honest"? I would be lying to you if I told you that I didn't believe that JCING is heresy, because I believe that it is.
that would be me!
I could modify how I feel about the use of the word heresy... if you mean simply "out of the mainstream system of belief", fine.
however, your further elaboration reveals that you believe I, a heretic, have been driven away from God at the least, and have rejected the truth of the gospel at the worst. my "outside of the mainstream" belief (so judged by people holding a different belief) has made me a "truth" rejecter.
you also said:
"The truth on this subject IS knowable in the sense that we can know the truth of each element of the Nicene Creed (i.e. either Jesus is God or is not, either Jesus and the father are distinct in some way or they are indistinguishable, etc.)"
how can you have an honest discussion with someone who doesn't believe the trinity the way you do, when you opening confess that you believe they are deluded? seems like it would be like trying to understand a crazy person. according to you, I should be able to plainly see the elements of the nicene creed in scripture. I cannot. I'm sorry. I see no chance for honest discussion here because no matter what I say, I'm wrong until I see the truth of the nicene creed in scripture. you might as well just soapbox and see who cheers.
I wish I knew how to copy your post into the quote format everyone else is using...
I do not feel that people who believe as I once did are deluded. Just because someone believes something that is incorrect does not make them deluded, just wrong. This is not to say that they are being rebellious against God because of their "wrong" belief.
Honestly, I hope that you currently think that I am wrong. You have said that you believe something that contradicts something I believe. Therefore, I would be, logically, wrong (or atleast I would be if you are correct). I hope that you recognize that we cannot BOTH be right on this. Either Jesus IS God or he IS NOT God. Those are exclusive statements.
That being said, just because I expect that you think that I am wrong doesn't cause me to think you may not have something to teach me. I am eager to hear your perspective.
Let me be totally upfront here. Contrary to appearances, I am NOT here to change anyone's minds.
Since leaving the offshoot of the Way that I was in back in 1995, I have never had the chance to test the reasons I rejected way theology by running it past any current adherents of Way theology. I would hope to find some of those here.
If the arguments and reasonings that led me to reject the conclusions of JCING are not good enough to convince others then either I am weak at communicating them, or maybe I should rethink my conclusions.
(I have not yet stated any of these arguments and reasonings... we are still laying the groundwork for a good lengthy discussion I hope...)
One of the things that I can say positive about most of the people that came out of the Way... they do think hard about what they believe. I would say most ex-wayfers, as a rule, think more about doctrine than 90% of lifelong trinitarians.
How can I test my beliefs in the trinity with people that have not had to struggle through the same teachings and objections to the trinity that I have had to struggle through?
As far as soapboxing... lemme say this.. I don't mind doing that but I won't be listening for the cheers.... I wanna understand the boohs! More than that, I would prefer dialogue and I think that we would ALL learn more if we discussed the issues one at a time.
you said, "what if I say Jesus was a man but when he received the reward of Christ he became a God but less than the God the creater of the heaven in the earth our father in truth".
The problem there would be twofold,
1) This would indeed contradict the Shema... there is only ONE God, not two, or three, or any more.
2) In the OT God declared that He would give his glory to no one (see Isaiah 42:8). If God were to elevate another to Godhood, true Deity, then he would be giving His glory away...
Now God does "glorify" Jesus and will do that for His saints. In order to understand He meant when He said that He would not "give his glory to another", we must look at the context of Isaiah 42. The whole chapter is about the worship of false gods. God says that these idols are not worthy of worship and God's stated reason for this conclusion (see even God uses logic) is that He Himself is the ONE AND ONLY GOD and that He will never give this glory (which glory?) the glory of Godhood.
Brothers and Sisters in Christ, we will never be Gods. There is and there will always be only one God.
1 John 3:1 and 2 does not say we will be Christ, but that we will become LIKE him. We don't know what that means, as John acknowledges in the same verse saying, "it has not appeared as yet what we shall be...".
Therefore, we have a few options:
1) Either Jesus is and has always been God...
OR
2) Jesus is NOT God and never was and never will be.
We cannot believe Isaiah 42 and also believe the Jesus in any way "became" God, or a god.
Therefore, if there are verses that call Jesus GOD, identifying Him as the creator worthy of worship, then He must be THE God, since there is only one.
Someone will respond about Moses being refered to as God... but Moses was never referred to as God in the same way that Jesus is repeatedly referred to as God. In fact, God never did call Moses a "god". He merely told him (Moses) that He (God) would make him (Moses) to be "as a God TO pharoah".
Click on the "reply" button at the bottom of the post that you want to quote.
You can end a quote (like I did by quoting just the beginning of your post) by placing /quote in brackets at the end. Start a new quote by placing
Honestly, I hope that you currently think that I am wrong. You have said that you believe something that contradicts something I believe. Therefore, I would be, logically, wrong (or atleast I would be if you are correct).
ah, sonofarthur. I like you. this is the first thing you've said that makes me think that we can both eat at the same table... even if I disagree with the above statement! I am not willing to say I think I'm right and you're wrong. all I can say is based on the evidence I have at hand, I believe Jesus is not God. call me wishy-washy or lukewarm if you will, but twi dealt in absolutes and on many things I simply cannot at the moment consider them in absolutes and I can no longer say with utter conviction on many things "you are wrong".
I have not had the time or opportunity to reassess some things to see how much adjustment they need. God and Jesus have been stripped to their bare existence in my mind, to the simplest of what they said they are. I refuse at this time to embellish them. I accept I know little about them. the bible and other writings fail to explain them to the extent I would like to know them. I accept much cannot be known in this life. I refuse to know them through the twi filter.
I have embraced the concept of the continuum for many things I used to believe in absolutes. I have a lot of data to sift through to see how my change in view will effect my perception and relationship with God and Jesus.
that's why I say, I believe Jesis is not God but I will not say you're wrong.
The doctrine of the trinity is built on three ideas that I posted recently.
1) There is only one God.
I don't think we need to argue on this one do we?
2) The Father is God, Jesus is God, and the Holy Spirit is God.
the first and third are generally accepted, but it is the second part that we should discuss.
3) The Father, Jesus, and the Holy Spirit each have distinct wills, knowledge, etc.
Unless any oneness pentecostals snuck in when I wasn't looking, then we won't need to argue for this.
So then, why don't we narrow our conversation to the issue of the deity of Jesus Christ.
Now then, let me first clarify what I mean and don't mean by this claim and then we can talk about the evidence.
I believe that Jesus is God. I do not mean by that that He is his own Father, or that He is not man.
Jesus is God in that He is the creator of the universe. He is our only savior and redeemer. He is omniscient, omnipresent (uncontained), omnipotent, and perfect in all His ways.
As God He is worthy of all of our praise and worship.
As God He is not limited except when and where He limits Himself. Philippians 2 tells us that He chose to not utilize his divine attributes as He accomplished our salvation as a man. He saved us as a man, not as God. He did not "lose or give up" His divine attributes, for to do so He would have ceased to be God. But, He willingly chose not to "make use of" his divine attributes. So then, as God, he knows ALL, but he chooses not to know certain things. For example, Jesus does NOT know the timing of His future return.
Further, AS God, Jesus, even while on Earth, had all the omnipotence as God. But as our Human Savior he did not use this power but submitted to God's design for ministry. Therefore, He walked in the enpowering of the Holy Spirit, just like Christians today are called to do. When He healed someone, He did this as He was led by the Holy Spirit. Thus it was said that "He could not do many mighty works there [in his hometown] because of their unbelief." God's economy calls for faith and since there was none in his hometown, Jesus was not led by the Holy Spirit to do many works there.
Jesus said, "I can only do that which is given to me of the Father". When He said this, he was not speaking from His divine nature (as Philippians 2 explains). He must have been speaking as our Human Redeemer when He said this.
It is hard for humans to understand how God can choose not to know something. We can't do that. Once I know something, I might forget it, but I don't know how to choose to forget it. But God the Father chooses to forget all the time. He has forgotten his children's past sins, for example. Does that mean he CANNOT know our past? No. Of course not. But God is all-powerful remember. He is ABLE to forget when He chooses to.
You can be unsure. If you are, then you shouldn't act otherwise. Perhaps you might say that you are 90% sure?
Anyway, even if someone is 100% sure, that doesn't mean they should be removed from the conversation or that they are not open-minded to change if given convincing evidence.
I used to be 100% sure that Jesus was not God. But I have changed. Thus, relative certainty is not the issue.
To say that I am 100% sure of my position only means that I currently have no reasonable doubt.
(Of course, I guess if you want to be 100% technical, then we could all be imagining all of this like in the movie The Matrix.... but once you go down the path of anything goes without evidence, then you are stuck in a vicious circle of cynicism from which there is no escape.
I choose to believe that there is objective truth in the universe and that it is knowable. That, I guess, would be pure faith on my part. Atleast it is consistent with everything I have witnessed thus far in my limited life.)
The funny thing here is that I am inviting someone to give me some doubt. I will decide whether or not it sounds reasonable. At the same time, I would invite all of you to decide whether or not my doubt of your position is reasonable or not.
This search for the truth about WHO GOD IS is a pivotal part of loving him with our whole heart, MIND, soul, and strength. This discussion is the mind part. Staying up this late past my bedtime when I need to get up early for work tomorrow is the strength part!
does it give us a twofold problem or do we not see the whole picture
Yes God is the God the creator of all things the first the greatest but that does not mean there will not be more of his kind
today we are fleshkind but one day I believe some of us will be Godkind what ever kind that is
like me and my father are part of mankind but he still is greater and wiser than me
John 5:18 Therefore the Jews sought the more to kill him, because he not only had broken the sabbath, but said also that God was his Father, making himself equal with God.
Phil 2:6 Who, being in the form of God, thought it not robbery to be equal with God:
Jesus Christ was the son of God making him a Godkind and Jesus Christ was in the form of God as Adam had the image of God
This does not cut down God's place but adds to his kind children who live as a family of Gods
God is the head the part you see and understand well, Jesus Christ is the son a little God, we will become baby Gods
Jesus was born in the image of God has Adam was
we are or will be recreated in this image
Col 1:16 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:
who is the him
Col 1:15 Who is the image of the invisible God, the firstborn of every creature:
all things were created by God and for God or this who which is Jesus Christ
Eph 3:9 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:
how can all things be created by God and by Jesus Christ too
God created all things in the beginning
man sinned all things begin to die
Jesus Christ re-creates all things so when the new creation is complete there will be no more sin which is death
Eph 4:24 And that ye put on the new man, which after God is created in righteousness and true holiness.
this new man is when we put on a body like Christ put on over 2,000 years ago
Col 3:10 And have put on the new man, which is renewed in knowledge after the image of him that created him:
this new image one like Adam was born and like Jesus Christ was born with the seed of holy spirit image -- Christ in us
Rev 4:11 Thou art worthy, O Lord, to receive glory and honour and power: for thou hast created all things, and for thy pleasure they are and were created.
God was Lord but Jesus Christ is called Lord too
God is Lord Father and Jesus Christ is Lord son and brother
this is all
but this is just me and you do not have to agree with me
I only see in part as we all see only in part
so add what the ones who believe in Trinity to what the ones who do not in Trinity and it will begin to fix together as two parts of a biger picture
Recommended Posts
Top Posters In This Topic
26
26
25
34
Popular Days
Jan 27
30
Jan 22
27
Jan 23
26
Jan 26
25
Top Posters In This Topic
T-Bone 26 posts
potato 26 posts
cman 25 posts
sonofarthur 34 posts
Popular Days
Jan 27 2007
30 posts
Jan 22 2007
27 posts
Jan 23 2007
26 posts
Jan 26 2007
25 posts
Posted Images
sirguessalot
very cool additions, Danny
i think there are/were a lot of things that are considered new to the world in Christianity
that were perhaps simply new to the world and times of Jesus
and something ive noticed, is how doctrinal arguments like this are often reduced to either/or types of positions
such as "is Jesus God...or not?"
"is the trinity true...or not?"
and such
when perhaps the inquiry can be expanded with things like
"is it possible that Jesus was trying to express ALL of our divinity?"
in a world that was largely unaware of such a reality
(the wisdom having been lost from the mainstream cultural storylines)
our seperation from God is not as much from actual seperation, but a natural perceived seperation
(which perceptions are as true as anything else, i suppose)
and the kid was trying passionately to help his mainstream jewish culture REclaim this old old idea
while living in a new very cosmopolitan middle eastern world
i dont find it hard to believe that a simple shift in perception can "save our souls from hell" in a sense
...that "hell-state" being one where we think God is strictly other or somehow elsewhere and distant
or that we could somehow find or bring ourselves to be outside of God
(which is simply not true, and perhaps never was, and never will be)
yeah, Oaks...the Bible seems clear as mud
i think when Paul writes of the "mystery of Christ"
he was basically expressing a healthy agnosticism
and his faith in the value of that as spiritual doctrine and approach to life
and how it opens us up to greater awe and the joy of new discovery
...which, of course, was quite new to old world mythic literalisms and such
Edited by sirguessalotLink to comment
Share on other sites
sonofarthur
Oakspear,
Good response!
As far as where you "mischaracterize", I agree that the formulation of the doctrine into a creed is a harmonization of several distinct points that are found in scripture. It sounded like you were saying that those who already hold this doctrine then twist and redefine other scripture points. If this is what you are saying then I disagree.
One example: The Bible NEVER says that God is unable to "become" a man. It doesn't even say that God is not a man unless you cut off the end of that verse ("that he should lie").
Correct quote from the Bible: "God is not a man THAT he should lie."
Incorrect quote: "God is NOT a man." ----let's not take things out of context. Taking things out of context is twisting and manipulating scripture.
I've said it before, but I think that I might have been unclear: I am not interested in arguing for the validity of the Nicene Creed, but rather the individual elements within it. Having said that, that creed was man-made and NOT God-breathed. I am much more interested in discussing its key points...
Why?
Because acceptance or denial of the creed only affects ones fellowship with other believers (that is what its original purpose was). On the other hand to deny certain elements of the creed such as the deity of Jesus, the work of the Holy Spirit, the virgin birth, etc, is to deny the key essentials of the Christian faith. If you don't believe like a Christian then one can validly ask if you are one.
This is NOT to say that you are not saved if you believe JCING is correct. On the other hand, if you believe that Christians cannot today have a genuine personal relationship with Jesus (as was indeed taught in TWI), then how will you respond when Jesus tells you, "I never knew you."? (See Matthew 7:21-24).
Someone said something about the use of terms such as orthodoxy, heresy, and truth. Why does my use of such terms cause the discussion to no longer be "honest"? I would be lying to you if I told you that I didn't believe that JCING is heresy, because I believe that it is.
I should briefly digress for clarity: I can identify four types of doctrinal error discussed in the Bible:
1) mistake
2) error
3) heresy
4) damnable heresy
Mistakes and Errors are made all the time. I have no doubt that I believe in some mistakes and even errors. Let me take a silly example that you might relate to: I believe (still do) that Jesus died on a Wednesday. But if I am wrong that would be a mistake. My belief in this, or lack thereof, does not in any way affect my level of faith in God or my ability to live for Him.
Errors are wrong teachings that are wrong enough that believing in them hinders a persons faith in God. For example, if you believed that God wants everyone to be sick, then you would never dare have the the faith to pray for God to heal you.
Heresies are wrong teachings that drive people away from obedience to God. Believing a heresy would cause a person to do something that is contrary to God's will. I think that VPW's private teachings about adultery caused many who believed them to commit sin. This doctrine was a heresy.
A damnable heresy is a doctrine that is inconsistent with the Gospel itself. To fully embrace a damnable heresy is to reject the truth of the Gospel. Can Christians believe in damnable heresies. If you believe in once saved always saved then I would have to say yes. I do too. Thus, I believe that many born-again Christians embrace damnable heresies.
More later... I need to go for now...
Link to comment
Share on other sites
GarthP2000
Is this something like "There are lies, there are damn lies, and then there are statistics"?
Link to comment
Share on other sites
Cynic
Concerning the distinction of wills observable in Jesus' prayer in the garden of Gethsemane being some supposed defeater for the deity of Christ, someone should point out that historical Christian orthodoxy holds that Jesus Christ has two, divine and human, wills, similarly as he has two, divine and human, natures.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Monothelitism
As for the charge that Christological matters involve or ultimately arrive at something too speculative, Hilary of Poitiers possibly answered well:
"The heretics compel us to speak where we would far rather be silent. If anything is said, this is what must be said."
Edited by CynicLink to comment
Share on other sites
Oakspear
Link to comment
Share on other sites
sonofarthur
Garth,
Thank you Henry Clay!
Yeah, sort of, I guess!
the point is that I think that a person can still have an honest discussion on this topic while believing that the Trinity is Orthodox (right belief) and that to deny it is heretical.
I posit that to deny the Trinity IS heretical.
To deny the deity of Christ is on the edge of damnable heresy, depending on what you then say about Jesus.
I think that when I was saved at the young age of four, I did not call Jesus God. But I did believe in the sum and substance of what it means to believe that He is God. I called him Lord, and not just the Lord, but MY Lord. As a four year old, I said to him (Jesus) that He was the boss of me. He is also the Savior of Me.
Do you believe that Jesus is the Boss and Savior of You? Then, you must logically believe that you need a savior... but when you say that you need a Savior, do you mean merely that you need help because you got caught? Jesus is not just our Savior from death and from sin, He is our Savior from ourselves!
Even as a 4 year old I understood that I often do bad things. I need someone to deliver me from the penalty of these actions... but I also need Him to deliver me from my future actions.
Have you asked Jesus to forgive you for the sins that you might commit in the future? If He is your savior then He already has.
I believe that many who embrace TWI doctrine ARE truly saved, but then there are also many that are NOT.
If you think that salvation came when you came to a mere mental acceptance of the facts about the resurrection and also ascribed the title of "lord" to Jesus, then you are sorely in error.
Romans 10:9 says that we must "believe in your heart". Not merely mental is it?
Link to comment
Share on other sites
Oakspear
Link to comment
Share on other sites
T-Bone
Damnable Heresies for $400
If TWI charged $100 per student for the PFAL Class - how much would they charge a family of three after finding out the mother is expecting - - or is that believing?
[and no help from the math professor please]
Link to comment
Share on other sites
sonofarthur
but if you are REALLY believing shouldn't you BELIEVE for twins? but why not stop there... someone else's believing is "stronger" than yours cause they get triplets.... man, with this logic I guess the family that had octuplets need to be put on the BOT!!
Link to comment
Share on other sites
starbird
are you saying that jesus is god???????
"concerning that day and hour nobody knows, neither the angels of the heavens
NOR THE SON, but only the father." {matt.24:36}
if they were both the same jesus would've known the day and the hour.
starbird x x x
Link to comment
Share on other sites
sonofarthur
Starbird,
To say that Jesus is God (that is what I am saying) is not to say that he is the Father. He certainly is not THE Father, as the verse you quoted demonstrates.
Link to comment
Share on other sites
Cynic
Evan,
More than in any post I have ever made anywhere to anyone, I hope I can say something here to you that hits home.
The Holy Spirit is identified in Scripture as a divine person, but he is so identified more sparsely than the Father and the Son. 1 Corinthians 12: 4-6, Ephesians 4:4-6, and 2 Corinthians 13:14, for instance, identify the three divine persons, naming them and juxtaposing them in a way that indicates distinction from one another. The Holy Spirit really cannot be a renaming of the Father in such passages.
I am speculating, but I think your problem might have at least two significant elements. The first element is a negative one: A metaphor is lacking by which we can think about the person of the Holy Spirit in terms of something in our own experience. There is something communicated to us about personhood when Scripture speaks to us about the Father and the Son, because we understand something about fathers and sons. Similarly, we recognize (without engaging in much thought about it) an aspect of personhood in various terms (e.g. creator, king, judge) Scripture uses to refer to God . But what is spirit? The word does not elicit an analogy to a person in our experience. Thus, theologians and apologetes generally demonstrate the Holy Spirit's personhood in an inductive fashion, showing that the Holy Spirit has personal qualites, and thus personhood, by citing scriptures that indicate he speaks, directs, can be grieved or lied to, etc.
Secondly, Wierwille put some aberrant ideas about a distinction between the Holy Spirit and holy spirit into Wayfers’ minds. Wierwille, as you know, taught there is a Holy Spirit who is the giver, and holy spirit which is his gift. In Wierwille’s pneumatology, the gift holy spirit is not really even a singular entity, since it is an impersonal whatever that is created in each individual Christian at the new birth. Wierwille’s pneumatology entails numerous holy spirits, since it involves individual creations within multiple Christians. What becomes of these things when Wayfers die, and the creations in them go back to God? Do these creations retain individuation? Or, do they become de-individualized and absorbed into a single collective?
I think whatever in Wierwille’s position was not a mere parroting of Bullinger probably was informed by the way in which Wierwille viewed the new birth. My own view, which I hold somewhat tentatively, is that regeneration might involve the creation of a new human spirit or a reconstitution of a fallen human spirit, but is certainly not a creation of what Scripture is referring to when Scripture uses the words Holy Spirit. What comes about or is reborn in man at regeneration is part of man, and is to be continually renewed through the work of the Holy Spirit into the image of the Lord whom man beholds. In a new, or perhaps reconstituted nature, Christians can partake of the communicable attributes of God, but remain creatures who are in no ontological sense what God is.
The Holy Spirit is a singular person who indwells all the regenerate, and, among other things, relates the deep things of God and the deep things of man. A helpful analogy concerning how the single person of the Holy Spirit indwells all Christians might be a single ocean's filling of all crevices, trenches, caverns, etc. that exist in the ocean’s floor.
Edited by CynicLink to comment
Share on other sites
year2027
God first
Beloved All
God loves us all
what if I say Jesus was a man but when he received the reward of Christ he became a God but less than the God the creater of the heaven in the earth our father in truth
Jesus Christ when he die for us he re-created all things that his father first created because of the coming sin by the first Adam
making a hope for all things to be reborn in due time
now one day I will be born into a God too as Christ was because the love Jesus gave us by dying for us
note in Gnostic books we read things like three power man who is Christ
this is the second Adam who was like the first Adam
created with a living body, a living soul, and a a living spirit
but we were created by our mother's with a living body, a living soul, and a a dead spirit
but Christ came to re-created the seed in us the spiritual life if we just believe in him by a life style of confessing with our life that Jesus Christ is our Lord and Savior and that he rose from the dead as we can
thank you
with love and a holy kiss blowing your way Roy
Edited by year2027Link to comment
Share on other sites
T-Bone
Both of you have some very interesting points! I've often wondered about what went on in the heads of believers in the early days of Christianity. It's hard for me to imagine what a major upheaval philosophically it might have been for any Hebrews that came to Christ…I think that would be fun to read up on some of those early Christian writings and even stuff from the pre-Christian Jewish frame-of-thought. Checking out things from another point of view can be very enlightening.
Edited by T-BoneLink to comment
Share on other sites
potato
that would be me!
I could modify how I feel about the use of the word heresy... if you mean simply "out of the mainstream system of belief", fine.
however, your further elaboration reveals that you believe I, a heretic, have been driven away from God at the least, and have rejected the truth of the gospel at the worst. my "outside of the mainstream" belief (so judged by people holding a different belief) has made me a "truth" rejecter.
you also said:
"The truth on this subject IS knowable in the sense that we can know the truth of each element of the Nicene Creed (i.e. either Jesus is God or is not, either Jesus and the father are distinct in some way or they are indistinguishable, etc.)"
how can you have an honest discussion with someone who doesn't believe the trinity the way you do, when you opening confess that you believe they are deluded? seems like it would be like trying to understand a crazy person. according to you, I should be able to plainly see the elements of the nicene creed in scripture. I cannot. I'm sorry. I see no chance for honest discussion here because no matter what I say, I'm wrong until I see the truth of the nicene creed in scripture. you might as well just soapbox and see who cheers.
Link to comment
Share on other sites
sonofarthur
Potato,
I wish I knew how to copy your post into the quote format everyone else is using...
I do not feel that people who believe as I once did are deluded. Just because someone believes something that is incorrect does not make them deluded, just wrong. This is not to say that they are being rebellious against God because of their "wrong" belief.
Honestly, I hope that you currently think that I am wrong. You have said that you believe something that contradicts something I believe. Therefore, I would be, logically, wrong (or atleast I would be if you are correct). I hope that you recognize that we cannot BOTH be right on this. Either Jesus IS God or he IS NOT God. Those are exclusive statements.
That being said, just because I expect that you think that I am wrong doesn't cause me to think you may not have something to teach me. I am eager to hear your perspective.
Let me be totally upfront here. Contrary to appearances, I am NOT here to change anyone's minds.
Since leaving the offshoot of the Way that I was in back in 1995, I have never had the chance to test the reasons I rejected way theology by running it past any current adherents of Way theology. I would hope to find some of those here.
If the arguments and reasonings that led me to reject the conclusions of JCING are not good enough to convince others then either I am weak at communicating them, or maybe I should rethink my conclusions.
(I have not yet stated any of these arguments and reasonings... we are still laying the groundwork for a good lengthy discussion I hope...)
One of the things that I can say positive about most of the people that came out of the Way... they do think hard about what they believe. I would say most ex-wayfers, as a rule, think more about doctrine than 90% of lifelong trinitarians.
How can I test my beliefs in the trinity with people that have not had to struggle through the same teachings and objections to the trinity that I have had to struggle through?
As far as soapboxing... lemme say this.. I don't mind doing that but I won't be listening for the cheers.... I wanna understand the boohs! More than that, I would prefer dialogue and I think that we would ALL learn more if we discussed the issues one at a time.
Where should we start?
Link to comment
Share on other sites
sirguessalot
now, that is great wisdom, imho
like saying "let us find the fountainhead together, rather than jump in midstream"
ok, so...where is the fountainhead?
i really dunno this time...cuz the fountainhead seems to move a lot
...but i am almost always game for the adventure..again
Link to comment
Share on other sites
Oakspear
You can end a quote (like I did by quoting just the beginning of your post) by placing /quote in brackets at the end. Start a new quote by placing
Edited by OakspearLink to comment
Share on other sites
sonofarthur
Year 2027,
you said, "what if I say Jesus was a man but when he received the reward of Christ he became a God but less than the God the creater of the heaven in the earth our father in truth".
The problem there would be twofold,
1) This would indeed contradict the Shema... there is only ONE God, not two, or three, or any more.
2) In the OT God declared that He would give his glory to no one (see Isaiah 42:8). If God were to elevate another to Godhood, true Deity, then he would be giving His glory away...
Now God does "glorify" Jesus and will do that for His saints. In order to understand He meant when He said that He would not "give his glory to another", we must look at the context of Isaiah 42. The whole chapter is about the worship of false gods. God says that these idols are not worthy of worship and God's stated reason for this conclusion (see even God uses logic) is that He Himself is the ONE AND ONLY GOD and that He will never give this glory (which glory?) the glory of Godhood.
Brothers and Sisters in Christ, we will never be Gods. There is and there will always be only one God.
1 John 3:1 and 2 does not say we will be Christ, but that we will become LIKE him. We don't know what that means, as John acknowledges in the same verse saying, "it has not appeared as yet what we shall be...".
Therefore, we have a few options:
1) Either Jesus is and has always been God...
OR
2) Jesus is NOT God and never was and never will be.
We cannot believe Isaiah 42 and also believe the Jesus in any way "became" God, or a god.
Therefore, if there are verses that call Jesus GOD, identifying Him as the creator worthy of worship, then He must be THE God, since there is only one.
Someone will respond about Moses being refered to as God... but Moses was never referred to as God in the same way that Jesus is repeatedly referred to as God. In fact, God never did call Moses a "god". He merely told him (Moses) that He (God) would make him (Moses) to be "as a God TO pharoah".
Link to comment
Share on other sites
potato
ah, sonofarthur. I like you. this is the first thing you've said that makes me think that we can both eat at the same table... even if I disagree with the above statement! I am not willing to say I think I'm right and you're wrong. all I can say is based on the evidence I have at hand, I believe Jesus is not God. call me wishy-washy or lukewarm if you will, but twi dealt in absolutes and on many things I simply cannot at the moment consider them in absolutes and I can no longer say with utter conviction on many things "you are wrong".
I have not had the time or opportunity to reassess some things to see how much adjustment they need. God and Jesus have been stripped to their bare existence in my mind, to the simplest of what they said they are. I refuse at this time to embellish them. I accept I know little about them. the bible and other writings fail to explain them to the extent I would like to know them. I accept much cannot be known in this life. I refuse to know them through the twi filter.
I have embraced the concept of the continuum for many things I used to believe in absolutes. I have a lot of data to sift through to see how my change in view will effect my perception and relationship with God and Jesus.
that's why I say, I believe Jesis is not God but I will not say you're wrong.
Link to comment
Share on other sites
sonofarthur
Where should we start...
I think we should start with Jesus.
The doctrine of the trinity is built on three ideas that I posted recently.
1) There is only one God.
I don't think we need to argue on this one do we?
2) The Father is God, Jesus is God, and the Holy Spirit is God.
the first and third are generally accepted, but it is the second part that we should discuss.
3) The Father, Jesus, and the Holy Spirit each have distinct wills, knowledge, etc.
Unless any oneness pentecostals snuck in when I wasn't looking, then we won't need to argue for this.
So then, why don't we narrow our conversation to the issue of the deity of Jesus Christ.
Now then, let me first clarify what I mean and don't mean by this claim and then we can talk about the evidence.
I believe that Jesus is God. I do not mean by that that He is his own Father, or that He is not man.
Jesus is God in that He is the creator of the universe. He is our only savior and redeemer. He is omniscient, omnipresent (uncontained), omnipotent, and perfect in all His ways.
As God He is worthy of all of our praise and worship.
As God He is not limited except when and where He limits Himself. Philippians 2 tells us that He chose to not utilize his divine attributes as He accomplished our salvation as a man. He saved us as a man, not as God. He did not "lose or give up" His divine attributes, for to do so He would have ceased to be God. But, He willingly chose not to "make use of" his divine attributes. So then, as God, he knows ALL, but he chooses not to know certain things. For example, Jesus does NOT know the timing of His future return.
Further, AS God, Jesus, even while on Earth, had all the omnipotence as God. But as our Human Savior he did not use this power but submitted to God's design for ministry. Therefore, He walked in the enpowering of the Holy Spirit, just like Christians today are called to do. When He healed someone, He did this as He was led by the Holy Spirit. Thus it was said that "He could not do many mighty works there [in his hometown] because of their unbelief." God's economy calls for faith and since there was none in his hometown, Jesus was not led by the Holy Spirit to do many works there.
Jesus said, "I can only do that which is given to me of the Father". When He said this, he was not speaking from His divine nature (as Philippians 2 explains). He must have been speaking as our Human Redeemer when He said this.
It is hard for humans to understand how God can choose not to know something. We can't do that. Once I know something, I might forget it, but I don't know how to choose to forget it. But God the Father chooses to forget all the time. He has forgotten his children's past sins, for example. Does that mean he CANNOT know our past? No. Of course not. But God is all-powerful remember. He is ABLE to forget when He chooses to.
thoughts or comments?
Link to comment
Share on other sites
sonofarthur
okay Potato,
I can respect that.
You can be unsure. If you are, then you shouldn't act otherwise. Perhaps you might say that you are 90% sure?
Anyway, even if someone is 100% sure, that doesn't mean they should be removed from the conversation or that they are not open-minded to change if given convincing evidence.
I used to be 100% sure that Jesus was not God. But I have changed. Thus, relative certainty is not the issue.
To say that I am 100% sure of my position only means that I currently have no reasonable doubt.
(Of course, I guess if you want to be 100% technical, then we could all be imagining all of this like in the movie The Matrix.... but once you go down the path of anything goes without evidence, then you are stuck in a vicious circle of cynicism from which there is no escape.
I choose to believe that there is objective truth in the universe and that it is knowable. That, I guess, would be pure faith on my part. Atleast it is consistent with everything I have witnessed thus far in my limited life.)
The funny thing here is that I am inviting someone to give me some doubt. I will decide whether or not it sounds reasonable. At the same time, I would invite all of you to decide whether or not my doubt of your position is reasonable or not.
This search for the truth about WHO GOD IS is a pivotal part of loving him with our whole heart, MIND, soul, and strength. This discussion is the mind part. Staying up this late past my bedtime when I need to get up early for work tomorrow is the strength part!
Link to comment
Share on other sites
sirguessalot
edited because i am an idiot
carry on
sweet dreams
Edited by sirguessalotLink to comment
Share on other sites
year2027
God first
Beloved son of Arthur
God loves you my dear friend
does it give us a twofold problem or do we not see the whole picture
Yes God is the God the creator of all things the first the greatest but that does not mean there will not be more of his kind
today we are fleshkind but one day I believe some of us will be Godkind what ever kind that is
like me and my father are part of mankind but he still is greater and wiser than me
John 5:18 Therefore the Jews sought the more to kill him, because he not only had broken the sabbath, but said also that God was his Father, making himself equal with God.
Phil 2:6 Who, being in the form of God, thought it not robbery to be equal with God:
Jesus Christ was the son of God making him a Godkind and Jesus Christ was in the form of God as Adam had the image of God
This does not cut down God's place but adds to his kind children who live as a family of Gods
God is the head the part you see and understand well, Jesus Christ is the son a little God, we will become baby Gods
Jesus was born in the image of God has Adam was
we are or will be recreated in this image
Col 1:16 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:
who is the him
Col 1:15 Who is the image of the invisible God, the firstborn of every creature:
all things were created by God and for God or this who which is Jesus Christ
Eph 3:9 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:
how can all things be created by God and by Jesus Christ too
God created all things in the beginning
man sinned all things begin to die
Jesus Christ re-creates all things so when the new creation is complete there will be no more sin which is death
Eph 4:24 And that ye put on the new man, which after God is created in righteousness and true holiness.
this new man is when we put on a body like Christ put on over 2,000 years ago
Col 3:10 And have put on the new man, which is renewed in knowledge after the image of him that created him:
this new image one like Adam was born and like Jesus Christ was born with the seed of holy spirit image -- Christ in us
Rev 4:11 Thou art worthy, O Lord, to receive glory and honour and power: for thou hast created all things, and for thy pleasure they are and were created.
God was Lord but Jesus Christ is called Lord too
God is Lord Father and Jesus Christ is Lord son and brother
this is all
but this is just me and you do not have to agree with me
I only see in part as we all see only in part
so add what the ones who believe in Trinity to what the ones who do not in Trinity and it will begin to fix together as two parts of a biger picture
thank you
with love and a holy kiss blowing your way Roy
Link to comment
Share on other sites
Join the conversation
You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.