If I had read that blog article a couple of years ago, I wouldn't have known what to make of it. As it is now, I can say "Hey! I recognize some of those words!" and I know how to look things up in grammars, etc.
Am I correct in remembering that you yourself had only a tangential exposure to TWI, Nate, or am I thinking of someone else?
I’ve been looking into some older threads….Nate, good post/link on foreknowledge – thanks.
vp offered an absurd explanation of the Greek word pros in John 1:1 …in the beginning was the Word and the Word was with [pros]God… vp said:
The word pros means “together with, yet distinctly independent of.”That is exquisite semantic accuracy. Jesus Christ in the beginning was together with God, yet He was distinctly independent of Him…How? In what you and I would express as “in the mind of God. God in His foreknowledge knew of the coming of the Lord Jesus Christ.”
(page 102 of Power for Abundant Living, the chapter titled In the Beginning Was the Word)
== == == ==
To unravel vp’s nonsense – let me restate his explanation another way: Jesus Christ was only a gleam in the Father’s eye. However God’s foreknowledge of Jesus Christ existed independently of God - - - God’s own foreknowledge of Jesus Christ was apparently separate from His own mind.
ok - back to speaking sensibly...If you ask me that makes no sense (vp's explanation and my rephrasing it). If someone told me they have thoughts that are independent of their own mind I would probably recommend they seek professional counseling.
According to real scholars of biblical Greek, the preposition pros implies not just proximity, but an intimate personal relationship (see The Expositor’s Greek Testament Vol. 1 page 684 discussing the word “with” in John 1).
I’ve been looking into some older threads….Nate, good post/link on foreknowledge – thanks.
vp offered an absurd explanation of the Greek word pros in John 1:1 …in the beginning was the Word and the Word was with [pros]God… vp said:
The word pros means “together with, yet distinctly independent of.”That is exquisite semantic accuracy. Jesus Christ in the beginning was together with God, yet He was distinctly independent of Him…How? In what you and I would express as “in the mind of God. God in His foreknowledge knew of the coming of the Lord Jesus Christ.”
(page 102 of Power for Abundant Living, the chapter titled In the Beginning Was the Word)
== == == ==
To unravel vp’s nonsense – let me restate his explanation another way: Jesus Christ was only a gleam in the Father’s eye. However God’s foreknowledge of Jesus Christ existed independently of God - - - God’s own foreknowledge of Jesus Christ was apparently separate from His own mind.
ok - back to speaking sensibly...If you ask me that makes no sense (vp's explanation and my rephrasing it). If someone told me they have thoughts that are independent of their own mind I would probably recommend they seek professional counseling.
According to real scholars of biblical Greek, the preposition pros implies not just proximity, but an intimate personal relationship (see The Expositor’s Greek Testament Vol. 1 page 684 discussing the word “with” in John 1).
Probably more than you want to know (it is for me) about pros, but here is a good link, Pros.
"...,the word was with God..." btw, God is in the accusative case, which is relevant to the meaning of pros.
I think Point A. in that paper sums it up pretty well. The basic meaning of Pros indicates "face to face." That seems to imply two different things, so that is probably where vp got the idea of "together with, yet distinctly independent of." There could be some validity in his definition.
I fail to see any validity in wierwille's redefining "pros" - from "face to face" to "together with yet distinctly independent of" - wierwille's definition fails on several counts:
it de-personalizes the situation of the intimacy between two beings (as "face to face" implies) to two of anything in close proximity to each other - then it could be a dog and a fire hydrant in a "face off" - No intimacy there.
wierwille adding "yet distinctly independent of" is superfluous- redundant - it's a different way of saying the same thing "together with"
and he further obfuscates any intelligible meaning by Offering an explanation saying the only way Jesus Christ could have existed in the beginning was in the mind of God - in his foreknowledge - that is to suggest that certain thoughts of God are "distinctly independent " of God's own mind.... so way back when - Jesus Christ even though he only existed in the mind of God - this....."thought" still had something like a free agent status and could have joined another team... fortunately for us this "thought" went to bat for Christianity - rah rah - gooooooooo "Jesus Thought "! Or maybe God just has a split personality disorder.
seems like wierwille went thru an awful lot of effort to avoid the implications of the real definition "face to face"
Probably more than you want to know (it is for me) about pros, but here is a good link, Pros.
"...,the word was with God..." btw, God is in the accusative case, which is relevant to the meaning of pros.
I think Point A. in that paper sums it up pretty well. The basic meaning of Pros indicates "face to face." That seems to imply two different things, so that is probably where vp got the idea of "together with, yet distinctly independent of." There could be some validity in his definition.
Aww, he thinks Wierwille deduced "together with, yet distinctly independent of" instead of reading that wording in Bullinger, finding it useful and simply repeating it (which, I will say, is not the same thing as plagiarism, because most people don't cite the author of a dictionary or lexicon when relaying word definitions. But that's a whole other story).
Anyway, the notion that Wierwille "got the idea" of anything is amusing, in this context.
So, Little Johnny hears Uncle Louie share an off-color joke and quickly realizes the whole room is consumed with laughter. He decides to retell the joke, in hopes of receiving the same response as Uncle Louie. Unfortunately, Johnny is much too young to grasp the nuanced ambiguity that fuels the humor and his retelling falls completely flat. That's pretty much how I see what happened with Little Vic when he tried to retell borrowed works that he, himself, didn't understand in the first place
I’ve been looking into some older threads….Nate, good post/link on foreknowledge – thanks.
vp offered an absurd explanation of the Greek word pros in John 1:1 …in the beginning was the Word and the Word was with [pros]God… vp said:
The word pros means “together with, yet distinctly independent of.”That is exquisite semantic accuracy. Jesus Christ in the beginning was together with God, yet He was distinctly independent of Him…How? In what you and I would express as “in the mind of God. God in His foreknowledge knew of the coming of the Lord Jesus Christ.”
(page 102 of Power for Abundant Living, the chapter titled In the Beginning Was the Word)
== == == ==
To unravel vp’s nonsense – let me restate his explanation another way: Jesus Christ was only a gleam in the Father’s eye. However God’s foreknowledge of Jesus Christ existed independently of God - - - God’s own foreknowledge of Jesus Christ was apparently separate from His own mind.
ok - back to speaking sensibly...If you ask me that makes no sense (vp's explanation and my rephrasing it). If someone told me they have thoughts that are independent of their own mind I would probably recommend they seek professional counseling.
According to real scholars of biblical Greek, the preposition pros implies not just proximity, but an intimate personal relationship (see The Expositor’s Greek Testament Vol. 1 page 684 discussing the word “with” in John 1).
VP had almost no knowledge of Greek, Biblical customs, or manuscript history.
He read mostly 19th century High German hermeneutics, studies homilies (story telling) at Princeton Divinity, never attended Moody (he lied, you can check their public records), and got a fake "doctorate" from a weekend class at a house in Colorado. He was phony.
The real issue is: which "in the beginning" is John talking about? Of course, everyone just assumes that it's before the Creation in Genesis, but that isn't necessarily the meaning to be understood.... the link below provides excellent evidence imo to offer another explanation. http://www.angelfire.com/space/thegospeltruth/TTD/verses/john1_1.html
After reading the article a couple of times I tend to think the author goes through great pains to disprove the Trinity – however I’m not crazy about his effort to confuse “in the beginning” in John 1:1 with “from the beginning” in I John 1:1 – as stated in one sentence from the angelfire article: “John's letter tells us quite clearly what he means by his language in the first verse of his letter and his Gospel.” I disagree - it seems obvious to me that there are two distinct and different time references between the gospel of John 1 and the letters of John.
“In the beginning” of John 1 has traditionally been understood as paralleling Genesis 1 – the beginning of the time -space-material universe. Besides echoing the Genesis phrasing – there are enough other far-reaching temporal allusions in this first chapter of John’s gospel to suggest more is meant than just the beginning of when the gospel was preached. In the grand scheme of things perhaps we should take note of the gospel intertwining creation and salvation. And in like manner borrowing “the Word” from the Old Testament as well as Greek philosophy John has intertwined a message that reaches out to both Jew and Greek.
Whereas I John 1:1 as well as other verses in John’s letters that the angelfire link correctly points out deal with “the beginning of the proclaimed Good News”. I don’t have a problem with that. Perhaps from John’s letters we may gather the gospel message is solid…secure…unchanging…stable…not evolving or morphing to follow trends or some fad or to give it market appeal.
Of course this is just all my opinion – I could be wrong.
and he further obfuscates any intelligible meaning by Offering an explanation saying the only way Jesus Christ could have existed in the beginning was in the mind of God - in his foreknowledge - that is to suggest that certain thoughts of God are "distinctly independent " of God's own mind.... so way back when - Jesus Christ even though he only existed in the mind of God - this....."thought" still had something like a free agent status and could have joined another team... fortunately for us this "thought" went to bat for Christianity - rah rah - gooooooooo "Jesus Thought "! Or maybe God just has a split personality disorder.
you see, all these topics of Trinity mainly pointed to John1:1, Hell and Heaven mainly, Jesus is God, is continue bringing hell of confusion to Christians minds and there is no prefect clarification regarding.
The highlight comments may Concorde with Ephesians 1: 4;5 " we are chosen before the foundation of the world" how's it possible if is not through His foreknowledge? Seems like I don't to believe people and the bible anymore! too many confusion!
Wouldn't God taking action based on what he knows will happen (as opposed to what could likely happen) kind of like determinism?
If he knew a savior was needed before it was needed. Just like everything else.
So he's got these rules though that he follows of what to allow and what not allow to happen? Yes? No? Just random then?
He knew he would have to send a flood, plagues, allow the fall of Constantinople. He knows every decision to be made before it is made. Meaning our thoughts are in God's foreknowledge too?
By why allow some things and not others? Just sort of playing it out in his hands?
How does God have foreknowledge? Just likeyouhave foreknowledge. And you're saying,"What?!"Sure you do. Let's say you have an eight year old child, and we set before him a plate of brownies and a plate of broccoli. We then ask you to demonstrate your foreknowledge by telling us which plate he will choose. You can do so because of your knowledge of the past and the present life of your child, even though in reality your knowledge is quite limited because you cannot read your child's mind, nor do you know everything he has ever done.
So what is meant by foreknowledge is not what foreknowlegde sounds like. At least according to JL.
How does God have foreknowledge? Just likeyouhave foreknowledge. And you're saying,"What?!"Sure you do. Let's say you have an eight year old child, and we set before him a plate of brownies and a plate of broccoli. We then ask you to demonstrate your foreknowledge by telling us which plate he will choose. You can do so because of your knowledge of the past and the present life of your child, even though in reality your knowledge is quite limited because you cannot read your child's mind, nor do you know everything he has ever done.
So what is meant by foreknowledge is not what foreknowlegde sounds like. At least according to JL.
That has to be one of the weakest attempts at explanation I've ever seen.
you see, all these topics of Trinity mainly pointed to John1:1, Hell and Heaven mainly, Jesus is God, is continue bringing hell of confusion to Christians minds and there is no prefect clarification regarding.
The highlight comments may Concorde with Ephesians 1: 4;5 " we are chosen before the foundation of the world" how's it possible if is not through His foreknowledge? Seems like I don't to believe people and the bible anymore! too many confusion!
5 hours ago, Bolshevik said:
So Google says John Lynn is the number search hit on the subject:
How does God have foreknowledge? Just likeyouhave foreknowledge. And you're saying,"What?!"Sure you do. Let's say you have an eight year old child, and we set before him a plate of brownies and a plate of broccoli. We then ask you to demonstrate your foreknowledge by telling us which plate he will choose. You can do so because of your knowledge of the past and the present life of your child, even though in reality your knowledge is quite limited because you cannot read your child's mind, nor do you know everything he has ever done.
So what is meant by foreknowledge is not what foreknowlegde sounds like. At least according to JL.
How come in all those translations there's no hint or implication of foreknowledge? I don't see it. I'm assuming foreknowledge came from somewhere.
(The link in the original post is busted)
In vpw’s teaching on John 1 “who is the word?” vpw asserted there was only one way to explain how Christ could have “existed” in the beginning – by taking into account God’s foreknowledge. However, as noted above such a concept is not implied in the text of John’s first chapter.
vpw further confuses things in that same study by referencing Ephesians 1: 4 & 5 – where it says God chose us in him before the foundation of the world and he says something along the lines of “don’t tell me you were floating around somewhere back then” in other words, like Christ, we only existed in God’s foreknowledge way back when…suggesting this is like John 1:1 is preposterous…Ephesians 1:4 & 5 say more about God’s sovereignty than anything else. But that’s another thorny subject – the conundrum of God’s sovereignty and man’s freedom of will.
JAL’s cheesy explanation of foreknowledge – reveals he has the same inept reductionist tendencies as vpw…I dunno...maybe it’s my Roman Catholic upbringing – but I’m all for acknowledging the ineffable greatness of God…the mysteriousness of God…and his inexplicable ways (such as God’s sovereignty vs man’s freewill, I mentioned earlier) …if God is truly an infinite, omnipotent, omnipresent, omniscient being our theology can only speculate or try to imagine what that’s all like…I’m not crazy about trying to squeeze John 1 down into a nice and neat easily understood Bible study that relies on goofy definitions and silly explanations.
In a movie or tv show one scene can be used to deliberately get a viewer thinking along certain lines. A quick switch of scene in another time and place can then be shown, but those thoughts of the previous scene are present in the viewer's mind and affect interpretation of the new scene (which is fine and good in a movie) . . . . No doubt to me that was VPW's intent with Ephesians and a jump to John. (This jumping around the Bible seemed like pointless humor once. Probably had a sinister origin.)
It is of interest that Jesus, The Word, The Logos are used in acts of creation or renewal. At least seem to be.
you see, all these topics of Trinity mainly pointed to John1:1, Hell and Heaven mainly, Jesus is God, is continue bringing hell of confusion to Christians minds and there is no prefect clarification regarding.
The highlight comments may Concorde with Ephesians 1: 4;5 " we are chosen before the foundation of the world" how's it possible if is not through His foreknowledge? Seems like I don't to believe people and the bible anymore! too many confusion!
When I read those verses in Ephesians I read that God made creation for humans. He made it with people in mind. The earth was prepared for something, not for the sake of itself. Following that it talks about what was done with JC, again, for the sake of people.
I do not see foreknowledge in those Ephesians verses in the sense that can be used to disprove a Trinitarian view of John 1:1.
I'm not in position to disprove any belief or doctrine of anyone and we can bring the verses or article and won't be enough to cover this. As for me I don't mind if you're Trinitarian or Unitarian, but we need to get a big picture on the John1:1 what beginning he is talking about and if this support indeed the trinity.
So, Little Johnny hears Uncle Louie share an off-color joke and quickly realizes the whole room is consumed with laughter. He decides to retell the joke, in hopes of receiving the same response as Uncle Louie. Unfortunately, Johnny is much too young to grasp the nuanced ambiguity that fuels the humor and his retelling falls completely flat. That's pretty much how I see what happened with Little Vic when he tried to retell borrowed works that he, himself, didn't understand in the first place
I'm not in position to disprove any belief or doctrine of anyone and we can bring the verses or article and won't be enough to cover this. As for me I don't mind if you're Trinitarian or Unitarian, but we need to get a big picture on the John1:1 what beginning he is talking about and if this support indeed the trinity.
just to be clear I never implied that John 1 supports the Trinity. But I do believe it speaks of the divinity of Christ – as does your reference/link to Philippians 2:6.
And regarding your link/reference to Ephesians 4:6 – I don’t have a problem with that either. I’ve come across this being addressed in several systematic theologies – that point to God the Father being the originator…the source…and Jesus Christ as the only authorized agent to act on behalf of the Father.
Steve Lortz has a great doctrinal thread on the economy of the Trinity – which makes a lot of sense to me…if you think about it – economy is the careful management of wealth and resources in terms of production and the consumption of goods and services – that dictionary definition is sort of business like…a little cold and clinical for my taste but in fact maybe that’s just a technical description of how the Father, the Son and the Holy Spirit conduct the business of redemption…I dunno…but do check out his thread Doctrine of the Trinity …you may find it enlightening…
I’ve often stated on Grease Spot I am a Trinitarian – but I use the term loosely – since there’s quite a variety of strains – and as I’ve said before on other doctrinal threads – there are many biblical subjects that defy our penchant to categorize and interpret the biblical data into neat, simple, and clear formulas for doctrine. But that’s just my standard disclaimer when it comes to matters of faith, doctrine, etc. - I could be wrong. I’m not a theologian – just an innocent bystander.
Your link/reference to Romans 10: 9 & 10 reminds me of a great book by F.F. Bruce Jesus: Lord & Savior...the book in simple terms shows how the early Christians began to perceive Jesus Christ...It was one of the first books I read after leaving the way international, that got me to think outside the box of the way's doctrine....anyway, just a thought.
Recommended Posts
Steve Lortz
If I had read that blog article a couple of years ago, I wouldn't have known what to make of it. As it is now, I can say "Hey! I recognize some of those words!" and I know how to look things up in grammars, etc.
Am I correct in remembering that you yourself had only a tangential exposure to TWI, Nate, or am I thinking of someone else?
Love,
Steve
Link to comment
Share on other sites
T-Bone
I’ve been looking into some older threads….Nate, good post/link on foreknowledge – thanks.
vp offered an absurd explanation of the Greek word pros in John 1:1 …in the beginning was the Word and the Word was with [pros] God… vp said:
The word pros means “together with, yet distinctly independent of.” That is exquisite semantic accuracy. Jesus Christ in the beginning was together with God, yet He was distinctly independent of Him…How? In what you and I would express as “in the mind of God. God in His foreknowledge knew of the coming of the Lord Jesus Christ.”
(page 102 of Power for Abundant Living, the chapter titled In the Beginning Was the Word)
== == == ==
To unravel vp’s nonsense – let me restate his explanation another way: Jesus Christ was only a gleam in the Father’s eye. However God’s foreknowledge of Jesus Christ existed independently of God - - - God’s own foreknowledge of Jesus Christ was apparently separate from His own mind.
ok - back to speaking sensibly...If you ask me that makes no sense (vp's explanation and my rephrasing it). If someone told me they have thoughts that are independent of their own mind I would probably recommend they seek professional counseling.
According to real scholars of biblical Greek, the preposition pros implies not just proximity, but an intimate personal relationship (see The Expositor’s Greek Testament Vol. 1 page 684 discussing the word “with” in John 1).
Edited by T-Boneclarity
Link to comment
Share on other sites
waysider
Or, to quote my dad, "It's exactly the same, but completely different."
Link to comment
Share on other sites
rrobs
Probably more than you want to know (it is for me) about pros, but here is a good link, Pros.
"...,the word was with God..." btw, God is in the accusative case, which is relevant to the meaning of pros.
I think Point A. in that paper sums it up pretty well. The basic meaning of Pros indicates "face to face." That seems to imply two different things, so that is probably where vp got the idea of "together with, yet distinctly independent of." There could be some validity in his definition.
Link to comment
Share on other sites
T-Bone
I fail to see any validity in wierwille's redefining "pros" - from "face to face" to "together with yet distinctly independent of" - wierwille's definition fails on several counts:
Edited by T-BoneClarity
Link to comment
Share on other sites
TLC
Except for my words, you don't know me. Does that somehow make my words another part of me, that I could then have a "face-to-face" with?
So much confusion has resulted from the appearance and use of the word logos. Evidently the work of the intelligentsia, out to dumb us down.
Link to comment
Share on other sites
Raf
Aww, he thinks Wierwille deduced "together with, yet distinctly independent of" instead of reading that wording in Bullinger, finding it useful and simply repeating it (which, I will say, is not the same thing as plagiarism, because most people don't cite the author of a dictionary or lexicon when relaying word definitions. But that's a whole other story).
Anyway, the notion that Wierwille "got the idea" of anything is amusing, in this context.
Link to comment
Share on other sites
waysider
So, Little Johnny hears Uncle Louie share an off-color joke and quickly realizes the whole room is consumed with laughter. He decides to retell the joke, in hopes of receiving the same response as Uncle Louie. Unfortunately, Johnny is much too young to grasp the nuanced ambiguity that fuels the humor and his retelling falls completely flat. That's pretty much how I see what happened with Little Vic when he tried to retell borrowed works that he, himself, didn't understand in the first place
Link to comment
Share on other sites
Longhunter
VP had almost no knowledge of Greek, Biblical customs, or manuscript history.
He read mostly 19th century High German hermeneutics, studies homilies (story telling) at Princeton Divinity, never attended Moody (he lied, you can check their public records), and got a fake "doctorate" from a weekend class at a house in Colorado. He was phony.
Link to comment
Share on other sites
Greek2me
The real issue is: which "in the beginning" is John talking about? Of course, everyone just assumes that it's before the Creation in Genesis, but that isn't necessarily the meaning to be understood.... the link below provides excellent evidence imo to offer another explanation.
Edited by Greek2mehttp://www.angelfire.com/space/thegospeltruth/TTD/verses/john1_1.html
Link to comment
Share on other sites
T-Bone
Thanks for that angelfire link.
After reading the article a couple of times I tend to think the author goes through great pains to disprove the Trinity – however I’m not crazy about his effort to confuse “in the beginning” in John 1:1 with “from the beginning” in I John 1:1 – as stated in one sentence from the angelfire article: “John's letter tells us quite clearly what he means by his language in the first verse of his letter and his Gospel.” I disagree - it seems obvious to me that there are two distinct and different time references between the gospel of John 1 and the letters of John.
“In the beginning” of John 1 has traditionally been understood as paralleling Genesis 1 – the beginning of the time -space-material universe. Besides echoing the Genesis phrasing – there are enough other far-reaching temporal allusions in this first chapter of John’s gospel to suggest more is meant than just the beginning of when the gospel was preached. In the grand scheme of things perhaps we should take note of the gospel intertwining creation and salvation. And in like manner borrowing “the Word” from the Old Testament as well as Greek philosophy John has intertwined a message that reaches out to both Jew and Greek.
Whereas I John 1:1 as well as other verses in John’s letters that the angelfire link correctly points out deal with “the beginning of the proclaimed Good News”. I don’t have a problem with that. Perhaps from John’s letters we may gather the gospel message is solid…secure…unchanging…stable…not evolving or morphing to follow trends or some fad or to give it market appeal.
Of course this is just all my opinion – I could be wrong.
Link to comment
Share on other sites
Bapsy
you see, all these topics of Trinity mainly pointed to John1:1, Hell and Heaven mainly, Jesus is God, is continue bringing hell of confusion to Christians minds and there is no prefect clarification regarding.
The highlight comments may Concorde with Ephesians 1: 4;5 " we are chosen before the foundation of the world" how's it possible if is not through His foreknowledge? Seems like I don't to believe people and the bible anymore! too many confusion!
Link to comment
Share on other sites
Bolshevik
Foreknowledge is confusing to me.
An infinite god could have infinite thoughts on infinite possibilities. What doesn't happen is in his foreknowledge?
Then again, foreknowledge implies a timeline. Is God restricted to time?
Link to comment
Share on other sites
Bolshevik
Wouldn't God taking action based on what he knows will happen (as opposed to what could likely happen) kind of like determinism?
If he knew a savior was needed before it was needed. Just like everything else.
So he's got these rules though that he follows of what to allow and what not allow to happen? Yes? No? Just random then?
He knew he would have to send a flood, plagues, allow the fall of Constantinople. He knows every decision to be made before it is made. Meaning our thoughts are in God's foreknowledge too?
By why allow some things and not others? Just sort of playing it out in his hands?
Doesn't that make anyone feel like a toy?
Link to comment
Share on other sites
Bolshevik
So Google says John Lynn is the number search hit on the subject:
http://thelivingtruthfellowship.org/jtltf/bible-teachings/articles-by-topc/gods-foreknowledge/156-does-god-have-absolute-foreknowledge
Go figure.
How does God have foreknowledge? Just like you have foreknowledge. And you're saying, "What?!" Sure you do. Let's say you have an eight year old child, and we set before him a plate of brownies and a plate of broccoli. We then ask you to demonstrate your foreknowledge by telling us which plate he will choose. You can do so because of your knowledge of the past and the present life of your child, even though in reality your knowledge is quite limited because you cannot read your child's mind, nor do you know everything he has ever done.
So what is meant by foreknowledge is not what foreknowlegde sounds like. At least according to JL.
Link to comment
Share on other sites
Bolshevik
So John 1:1
http://biblehub.com/john/1-1.htm
How come in all those translations there's no hint or implication of foreknowledge? I don't see it. I'm assuming foreknowledge came from somewhere.
(The link in the original post is busted)
Edited by BolshevikLink to comment
Share on other sites
waysider
That has to be one of the weakest attempts at explanation I've ever seen.
Link to comment
Share on other sites
Bolshevik
Yes. But would you have guessed it would be so? That's foreknowledge.
*nods spiritually*
Link to comment
Share on other sites
T-Bone
In vpw’s teaching on John 1 “who is the word?” vpw asserted there was only one way to explain how Christ could have “existed” in the beginning – by taking into account God’s foreknowledge. However, as noted above such a concept is not implied in the text of John’s first chapter.
vpw further confuses things in that same study by referencing Ephesians 1: 4 & 5 – where it says God chose us in him before the foundation of the world and he says something along the lines of “don’t tell me you were floating around somewhere back then” in other words, like Christ, we only existed in God’s foreknowledge way back when…suggesting this is like John 1:1 is preposterous…Ephesians 1:4 & 5 say more about God’s sovereignty than anything else. But that’s another thorny subject – the conundrum of God’s sovereignty and man’s freedom of will.
JAL’s cheesy explanation of foreknowledge – reveals he has the same inept reductionist tendencies as vpw…I dunno...maybe it’s my Roman Catholic upbringing – but I’m all for acknowledging the ineffable greatness of God…the mysteriousness of God…and his inexplicable ways (such as God’s sovereignty vs man’s freewill, I mentioned earlier) …if God is truly an infinite, omnipotent, omnipresent, omniscient being our theology can only speculate or try to imagine what that’s all like…I’m not crazy about trying to squeeze John 1 down into a nice and neat easily understood Bible study that relies on goofy definitions and silly explanations.
Edited by T-Boneclarity
Link to comment
Share on other sites
Bolshevik
In a movie or tv show one scene can be used to deliberately get a viewer thinking along certain lines. A quick switch of scene in another time and place can then be shown, but those thoughts of the previous scene are present in the viewer's mind and affect interpretation of the new scene (which is fine and good in a movie) . . . . No doubt to me that was VPW's intent with Ephesians and a jump to John. (This jumping around the Bible seemed like pointless humor once. Probably had a sinister origin.)
It is of interest that Jesus, The Word, The Logos are used in acts of creation or renewal. At least seem to be.
Link to comment
Share on other sites
Bolshevik
https://www.biblegateway.com/passage/?search=Ephesians+1
When I read those verses in Ephesians I read that God made creation for humans. He made it with people in mind. The earth was prepared for something, not for the sake of itself. Following that it talks about what was done with JC, again, for the sake of people.
I do not see foreknowledge in those Ephesians verses in the sense that can be used to disprove a Trinitarian view of John 1:1.
Am I missing something?
Link to comment
Share on other sites
Bapsy
http://thelivingtruthfellowship.org/jtltf/bible-teachings/articles-by-topc/faq/322-what-does-the-bible-teach-about-the-trinity
http://freechristianministry.com/integrity6.html
I'm not in position to disprove any belief or doctrine of anyone and we can bring the verses or article and won't be enough to cover this. As for me I don't mind if you're Trinitarian or Unitarian, but we need to get a big picture on the John1:1 what beginning he is talking about and if this support indeed the trinity.
http://biblehub.com/1_john/5-5.htm
I Timothy 2:5
Proverbs 8:22-23 http://biblehub.com/proverbs/8-23.htm
http://biblehub.com/ephesians/4-6.htm
in bottom line I believe in one God period. http://biblehub.com/philippians/2-6.htm
Romans 10:9-10 http://biblehub.com/romans/10-10.htm I Believe in Jesus Christ as our savior.
Link to comment
Share on other sites
Grace Valerie Claire
Way, good point!
Link to comment
Share on other sites
T-Bone
Hi Bapsy,
just to be clear I never implied that John 1 supports the Trinity. But I do believe it speaks of the divinity of Christ – as does your reference/link to Philippians 2:6.
And regarding your link/reference to Ephesians 4:6 – I don’t have a problem with that either. I’ve come across this being addressed in several systematic theologies – that point to God the Father being the originator…the source…and Jesus Christ as the only authorized agent to act on behalf of the Father.
Steve Lortz has a great doctrinal thread on the economy of the Trinity – which makes a lot of sense to me…if you think about it – economy is the careful management of wealth and resources in terms of production and the consumption of goods and services – that dictionary definition is sort of business like…a little cold and clinical for my taste but in fact maybe that’s just a technical description of how the Father, the Son and the Holy Spirit conduct the business of redemption…I dunno…but do check out his thread Doctrine of the Trinity …you may find it enlightening…
I’ve often stated on Grease Spot I am a Trinitarian – but I use the term loosely – since there’s quite a variety of strains – and as I’ve said before on other doctrinal threads – there are many biblical subjects that defy our penchant to categorize and interpret the biblical data into neat, simple, and clear formulas for doctrine. But that’s just my standard disclaimer when it comes to matters of faith, doctrine, etc. - I could be wrong. I’m not a theologian – just an innocent bystander.
Your link/reference to Romans 10: 9 & 10 reminds me of a great book by F.F. Bruce Jesus: Lord & Savior ...the book in simple terms shows how the early Christians began to perceive Jesus Christ...It was one of the first books I read after leaving the way international, that got me to think outside the box of the way's doctrine....anyway, just a thought.
love & peace
T-Bone
Edited by T-Boneclarity
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.