Wow - thanks dmiller for posting the picture! I'm having a royal High School flashback! You mentioned you had a hard time seeing the old woman. That reminds me of those posters that are a pattern but if you look close there's a shark or something in the picture. I can NEVER see the shark.
There are just some things in life I can't make my mind up on and the JC/Trinity debate is one of them. In personal prayer and worship, I tend to lean towards Jesus Christ not being God and I wonder if that's because I've had more teaching on this belief, or simply because that's the one that's easier for me to believe.
I'm currently attending a teaching on and for the Trinity and I will do a little research outside this teaching. I grew up with a trinity belief, but honestly, I go back and forth on this and I do belive it's ok.
It's something I'm still trying to understand, but if I never come to a conclusion one way or the other, I don't believe it has any bearing on my afterlife. It doesent have a negative impact on how I worship now. Sometimes I embrace both concepts during the same week. Other weeks I feel differently.
I know there are all kinds of people out there who might think this is wrong... I'm not here to argue my belief or lack thereof.
dmiller, your picture does explain my stand (or position on the fence), and I have a book around here with many more just like that, and tons of those books where you see nothing but patterns until you've stared yourself silly and then the picture (sharks or whatever is hidden in the picture) jumps out at you. (Hint: you have to stare a really LONG time to see the picture.)
It is about seeking people who love... and for me... also... finding people with little love, being an example to them (fruits of the spirt come to mind). Some reject, but most want to know my secret. I love to plant seeds. Makes me know, as the song says, He (JC) IS a friend of mine. That's all I need for now.
I feel the same way Amazing Grace, I flip flop . I am floored at the reminder of that picture Tbone!
I was reading the gospel of John today. NEVER really read it in TWI. What parts I did, was always with the TWI filter ON so I didn't have to "see" any trinity.
So reading it today, I'm saying "holy s#@T" I didn't see this before, or it is so clear here, then I go back to well..................
Then I see notes from the way in my bible. (I need a new one)
Perspective.
If I believe in the trinity, I will see the trinity.
If I believe he's not a part of the trinity, I will see it that way.
Amazing isn't it?
I don't think God cares, as long as we believe in Him and him.
Why do we want to define God in Human terms anyway?
"I feel the same way Amazing Grace, I flip flop . I am floored at the reminder of that picture Tbone! I was reading the gospel of John today. NEVER really read it in TWI. What parts I did, was always with the TWI filter ON so I didn't have to "see" any trinity…Why do we want to define God in Human terms anyway?"
Ditto for me too, Bliss, on the flip flop thing. But I'm not embarrassed or get uptight about it – I'm not writing any books about whether he's God or not - or drawing any intellectual lines in the sand…and I really like your last words: "Why do we want to define God in Human terms anyway?" And I know what you mean about reading the Bible with the TWI filter on…And when AmazingGrace talked about still leaning towards Jesus not being God in personal prayer and worship – I go "yeah, me too." I'll tell you what – doctrinally speaking I'm a mess – but I'm comfortable with that, I'm not leading any ministry or theological seminary. I'm not hell-bent on proving beyond a shadow of a doubt Jesus is God – I just don't know. But I'm working on removing the TWI glasses because they get some things out of focus. So, I have this sense of curiosity and excitement – believing that there's more to Jesus Christ than the narrow picture I got of him through my TWI goggles.
Not long after leaving TWI I was reading the gospel of John and noticed how sometimes as I read TWI explanations would automatically pop up in my head – even after getting a different Bible without my TWI notes.One day when I read John 1: 1 and 2 it was like seeing the alternate image in My Wife and Mother –in-Law. I was thinking about that experience as I read everyone's posts – got so excited I went up to the Attic and dug out my PFAL books…First I'll put the verses then quote VPW on them [VPW's words are in quotes and boldface].
John 1: 1, 2
"In the beginning was the Word, and the Word was with God, and the Word was God. The same was in the beginning with God." [King James Version]
VPW states the crux of his interpretation on pages 102 and 103, Chapter 8 "In the Beginning was the Word" of Power for Abundant Living: The Accuracy of the Bible "The key to understanding John 1:1 and 2 is the word "with." If any other Greek word were used for the word "with" except pros, the whole Bible would crumble. The word pros means "together with, yet distinctly independent of…This is its remarkable usage because it refutes the erroneous teaching that in the beginning Jesus Christ was with God to start everything. This is not what the Word says. It says that He was with Him, but the written Word was also with 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…This was all with God because of His foreknowledge."
On page 28 in Chapter 2 "Who is the Word?" of The Word's Way: Volume III, Studies in Abundant Living, copyright 1971, third printing 1976, VPW states, "How was this revealed Word with God? The Word was with God in His foreknowledge…This is what John 1: 1 literally says. The revealed Word was with God in His foreknowledge; the revealed Word was later to be manifested in writing as the Bible and in the flesh as Jesus Christ. How was Jesus with God in the beginning? In the same way that the written Word was with Him – in God's foreknowledge." And page 31, "Verse 2 could literally read, "The same [the written Word which is the Bible and the Word in the flesh which is Jesus Christ] was in the beginning with God [in His foreknowledge].""
Maybe it's me – maybe I'm being biased in my tendency to believe Jesus Christ is God – but I don't think VPW was justified in suggesting Jesus was in the beginning only in God's foreknowledge. I read the verse – and it sounds a lot like Genesis 1: 1. And is that sort of the interpretive key previous usage?
Pros: a preposition of direction; forward to, i.e. toward (with the genitive case, the side of, i.e. pertaining to; with the dative case, by the side of, i.e. near to; usually with the accusative case, the place, time, occasion, or respect, which is the destination of the relation, i.e. whither or for which it is predicated).
In this case it modifies the word theos -- used in the accusative case.
So, the phrase could be rendered: "the word was moving toward God"
Interesting thing, though...the next phrase (the Word was God). Word=God. God=Word.
There is a tremendous amount of theological information in these three expressions:
1) In the beginning (arche) was the Word. That means that the Word was there before creation.
2) The Word was with (moving toward) God.
3) The Word was God. Equivalence...
Probably more than you're looking for, but I hope it helps some...
(on edit, to correct a stupid grammatical error that I hadn't thought about since the seventh grade...with hearty thanks to Raf)
I don't know if Greek works the same way, but in English, a subject and "object" are both in the same case IF the verb is what is known as a linking verb. Linking verbs are neither transitive nor intransitive: they simply exist. It tells you that the subject isn't actually doing anything; it's being something. "To be" is the classic linking verb.
For example, I knock on your door and you ask:
"Who is it?"
Grammatically, the correct answer is:
"It is I."
The subject is "It."
The linking verb is "is."
The "object" is "I," but it is in the subjective case, not the objective (which would be "me").
When a noun follows a linking verb, it's in the subjective case and is referred to as a "predicate nominative."
All of which is to say I would expect both nouns to be in the nominative case when the verb in question is a linking verb.
In other words, Mark, your exposition on "The Word was God" may not quite prove anything, except the existence of grammar (assuming Greek grammar works the same as English in this case). We would not expect "God" to be in the dative case, because that would be poor grammar.
The shorter answer is that the word "pros" sometimes means exactly what Wierwille said it means, and it sometimes means other things.
I think comparing John with Genesis is a good thing.
In the beginning was the word...and God said....
John speaks of the beginning -skips the entire old testament till John the baptist.
1In the beginning was the Word, and the Word was with God, and the Word was God.
2The same was in the beginning with God.
3All things were made by him; and without him was not any thing made that was made.
4In him was life; and the life was the light of men.
5And the light shineth in darkness; and the darkness comprehended it not.
6There was a man sent from God, whose name was John.
7The same came for a witness, to bear witness of the Light, that all men through him might believe.
8He was not that Light, but was sent to bear witness of that Light.
9That was the true Light, which lighteth every man that cometh into the world.
10He was in the world, and the world was made by him, and the world knew him not.
11He came unto his own, and his own received him not.
12But as many as received him, to them gave he power to become the sons of God, even to them that believe on his name:
13Which were born, not of blood, nor of the will of the flesh, nor of the will of man, but of God. 14And the Word was made flesh, and dwelt among us, (and we beheld his glory, the glory as of the only begotten of the Father,) full of grace and truth.
I would have let your post stand. I could easily be wrong about how Greek grammar works. :)
The key point I did let stand: the equivalence.
But you're right and I pulled a dumba$$. (The problem with being an autodidact is that sometimes you let the perfectly obvious slip for the more subtle point)
Thanks Mark & Raf for the pros info - after thinking about the definitions another issue occurred to me. In the beginning if the Word was with God in foreknowledge only - or as VPW put it "in the mind of God" - then why use pros - together with yet distinctly independent of? Doesn't that suggest TWO SEPARATE entities? Am I just being a little too picky here? If it was just in God's thoughts - wouldn't it make more sense to say something like "In the beginning the Word was in God."?
Trinitarian exegesis typically asserts the John 1:1 statement “the Word was with God” distinguishes the Word (Jesus Christ) from God in a personal sense, while the statement “the Word was God” qualifies that the Word (Jesus Christ) is God in an ontological sense.
Contra modalism, the Son (the Word) and the Father (God) are distinct divine persons. Contra Arianism (and Socianianism), there is no subordination in nature between the Father and the Son.
As D. A. Reed has maintained on ex-Wayfer forums: The Father, the Son and the Holy Spirit are three whos, yet one what.
The Father and the Son are of the same essence, yet the Father is relationally God and Father to the Son. There is an order of relation and function among the Father, Son and Holy Spirit -- but no order of being. They are one being.
There is no adequate analogy for this among created existents.
Unitarian explanations of John 1:1 invariably render one or more of its propositions meaningless.
[From the London Baptist Confession of 1689 (bolding mine):]1. The Lord our God is but one only living and true God; whose subsistence is in and of himself, infinite in being and perfection; whose essence cannot be comprehended by any but himself; a most pure spirit, invisible, without body, parts, or passions, who only hath immortality, dwelling in the light which no man can approach unto; who is immutable, immense, eternal, incomprehensible, almighty, every way infinite, most holy, most wise, most free, most absolute; working all things according to the counsel of his own immutable and most righteous will for his own glory; most loving, gracious, merciful, long-suffering, abundant in goodness and truth, forgiving iniquity, transgression, and sin; the rewarder of them that diligently seek him, and withal most just and terrible in his judgments, hating all sin, and who will by no means clear the guilty.
2. God, having all life, glory, goodness, blessedness, in and of himself, is alone in and unto himself all-sufficient, not standing in need of any creature which he hath made, nor deriving any glory from them, but only manifesting his own glory in, by, unto, and upon them; he is the alone fountain of all being, of whom, through whom, and to whom are all things, and he hath most sovereign dominion over all creatures, to do by them, for them, or upon them, whatsoever himself pleaseth; in his sight all things are open and manifest, his knowledge is infinite, infallible, and independent upon the creature, so as nothing is to him contingent or uncertain; he is most holy in all his counsels, in all his works, and in all his commands; to him is due from angels and men, whatsoever worship, service, or obedience, as creatures they owe unto the Creator, and whatever he is further pleased to require of them.
3. In this divine and infinite Being there are three subsistences, the Father, the Word or Son, and Holy Spirit, of one substance, power, and eternity, each having the whole divine essence, yet the essence undivided: the Father is of none, neither begotten nor proceeding; the Son is eternally begotten of the Father; the Holy Spirit proceeding from the Father and the Son; all infinite, without beginning, therefore but one God, who is not to be divided in nature and being, but distinguished by several peculiar relative properties and personal relations; which doctrine of the Trinity is the foundation of all our communion with God, and comfortable dependence on him.
Thank you, Cynic, for sharing how some other denominations explain John 1: 1. I like checking out different perspectives – and even more so the thinking process that is behind a viewpoint. Our own beliefs are involved in the interpretation process.
The following is from Understanding Doctrine: What it is – and Why It Matters by Alister McGrath [McGrath's text is in boldface]: Doctrine interprets Scripture…It is a framework for the interpretation of Scripture which claims to be based upon Scripture itself [page 26]…A helpful way of thinking of the relation of doctrine to Scripture, probably suggested by a growing Victorian public interest in botanical gardens, was put forward by the nineteenth-century Scottish write Thomas Guthrie. Guthrie argued that Scripture is like nature, in which flowers and plants grow freely in their natural habitat, unordered by human hands. The human desire for orderliness leads to these same plants being collected and arranged in botanical gardens according to their species, in order that they can be individually studied in more detail. The same plants are found in different contexts – one of which is natural, the other of which is the result of human ordering. Doctrine represents the human attempt to order the ideas of Scripture, arranging them in a logical manner in order that their mutual relation can be better understood…[pages 28, 29]
Speaking about the doctrine of the Trinity McGrath says it is an attempt to bring together into a single formula the richness of the Christian understanding of God. For example, it holds together the following central elements of the biblical witness to the nature and purposes of God: - God created the world. – God redeemed us through Jesus Christ. – God is present in his church through the Spirit…The doctrine integrates these three elements into a greater whole…It is not meant to explain how God can be like this; it simply affirms that, according to the biblical witness, he is like this...[page 30]
To reiterate McGrath's ideas: Doctrine is man-made in that it is a framework – a tool for interpreting Scripture, a way that WE THINK select information should be organized. Doctrine is man's attempt to get the big picture…Maybe some arguments are really from people trying to explain how God can be like this in John 1: 1…It's hard to back down from our own theological positions and try to see what God is truly like.
(emphasis mine) Doctrine is man-made in that it is a framework – a tool for interpreting Scripture, a way that WE THINK select information should be organized. Doctrine is man's attempt to get the big picture…Maybe some arguments are really from people trying to explain how God can be like this in John 1: 1…It's hard to back down from our own theological positions and try to see what God is truly like.
Very revealing and brutally honest depiction of the concept of dogma and doctrine, T-Bone. Unfortunately over the many years, there were, and still are some who seem to forget that depiction, and go to treat dogma/doctrine as far more than what it really is, and give it the undue regard/reverence that it doesn't deserve.
Which goes a long way towards explaining why religious persecution often rears its ugly head, and why many have been murdered for it over the centuries.
Garth, I hope I didn't come off as being super-critical of doctrine, or of systematic theology - I was trying to make the point that sometimes we're not aware of how our beliefs shape our viewpoint...CM, I like your phrase "just exploring different ways of thinking."...
No worries. I was just focusing on the man made characteristic of it, thus putting a more realistic perspective on what doctrine and dogma and related items are and always have been. And as a result, shows why it's not, and never has been, some heniously offensive and immoral thing to question, publically challenge, and even to walk away from a doctrine that one no longer accepts.
Thank you, Cynic, for sharing how some other denominations explain John 1: 1. I like checking out different perspectives – and even more so the thinking process that is behind a viewpoint. Our own beliefs are involved in the interpretation process.
The following is from Understanding Doctrine: What it is – and Why It Matters by Alister McGrath [McGrath's text is in boldface]: Doctrine interprets Scripture…It is a framework for the interpretation of Scripture which claims to be based upon Scripture itself [page 26]…A helpful way of thinking of the relation of doctrine to Scripture, probably suggested by a growing Victorian public interest in botanical gardens, was put forward by the nineteenth-century Scottish write Thomas Guthrie. Guthrie argued that Scripture is like nature, in which flowers and plants grow freely in their natural habitat, unordered by human hands. The human desire for orderliness leads to these same plants being collected and arranged in botanical gardens according to their species, in order that they can be individually studied in more detail. The same plants are found in different contexts – one of which is natural, the other of which is the result of human ordering. Doctrine represents the human attempt to order the ideas of Scripture, arranging them in a logical manner in order that their mutual relation can be better understood…[pages 28, 29]
Speaking about the doctrine of the Trinity McGrath says it is an attempt to bring together into a single formula the richness of the Christian understanding of God. For example, it holds together the following central elements of the biblical witness to the nature and purposes of God: - God created the world. – God redeemed us through Jesus Christ. – God is present in his church through the Spirit…The doctrine integrates these three elements into a greater whole…It is not meant to explain how God can be like this; it simply affirms that, according to the biblical witness, he is like this...[page 30]
To reiterate McGrath's ideas: Doctrine is man-made in that it is a framework – a tool for interpreting Scripture, a way that WE THINK select information should be organized. Doctrine is man's attempt to get the big picture…Maybe some arguments are really from people trying to explain how God can be like this in John 1: 1…It's hard to back down from our own theological positions and try to see what God is truly like.
T-Bone,
Jesus was the Messiah promised in Old Testament scriptures. Jesus was born of a virgin. Jesus suffered and died. Jesus made propitiation for sins. Jesus was raised from the dead. Jesus ascended into heaven. Jesus will return from heaven. Jesus will have his elect gathered. Jesus will render vengeance to them who know not God and who do not obey the gospel.
The preceding paragraph consists of a topical collection of propositional statements based on indications of various scriptures. There is no single place in Scripture that states all that is affirmed by those statements. The statements have a historical/eschatological aspect and an aspect of communicating proper belief, thus are doctrinal in character.
The statements elude McGrath’s rather Kantian account of the relationship between Scripture and doctrine, however, because they function to repeat biblical testimony, rather than to interpret it. I think it doubtful that you or McGrath could find many thoughtful and informed theologians, philosophers, teachers, accountants, mechanics, painters, barflies, or strippers either to conclude the statements are vacant of doctrinal content or to separate them from Scripture by characterizing them as a humanly constructed interpretive framework.
You have cited McGrath to bolster your position that the Trinitarian explanation of John 1:1 I cited is man-made – and, thus, is doctrinally biographical of Trinitarians, rather than obligatory. In part, you are somewhat correct, since talk of subsistences, being, substance, nature and essence involves philosophical (ontological) categories that go some distance from what is biblically indicated, and even occasionally becomes an object of critical discussion among Trinitarians themselves (e.g. http://www.ccir.ed.ac.uk/~jad/vantil-list/...8/msg00032.html ).
The problem for Arians, modalists and Socinians, however, is not that they disbelieve and oppose what is biblically inexplicit. The problem is that they, without exception, disbelieve and oppose what is biblically explicit. Their objections are objections against the biblically revealed Christ -- who existed eternally, who was (in some respect) distinct from God, and who was (in some respect) God.
The Jesus in whom Socianian Wayfers and ex-Wayfers think they believe is a temporally beginning figure who did not exist in the beginning. He was not with God. He was not God. He did not come down from heaven, nor ascend to where he was before. He was not, and is not, what John’s gospel declares him -- the eternal Word and Son of God who became flesh -- to be.
The issue for these folks is not an issue with systematic or dogmatic theology. The issue for these folks is an issue in and about themselves. It is whether they hold in their persons some grotesquely distorted and deficient view of Christ, or whether the Christ they have conceptualized will be deemed by the Father to be the Christ sent by Him and revealed by Scripture at all.
Cynic, I was tracking with your above post until the following:
The issue for these folks is not an issue with systematic or dogmatic theology. The issue for these folks is an issue in and about themselves. It is whether they hold in their persons some grotesquely distorted and deficient view of Christ, or whether the Christ they have conceptualized will be deemed by the Father to be the Christ sent by Him and revealed by Scripture at all.
...in which you seem to imply that doctrine, as expressed, is a salvation issue.
I would submit that each of us hold a distorted or deficient view of Christ. Arguing that the Arian/Socinian view constitutes belief in "another" Jesus and therefore disqualifies its adherents from salvation goes too far, imo. While I find the VP description (and its ostensibly clarified/improved derivatives) of the godhead indefensible, I am unwilling to wrest the function of "only wise judge" from the Judge Himself.
Recommended Posts
Top Posters In This Topic
4
4
4
13
Popular Days
Mar 18
7
Mar 5
7
Mar 4
4
Mar 19
4
Top Posters In This Topic
ex10 4 posts
CM 4 posts
markomalley 4 posts
T-Bone 13 posts
Popular Days
Mar 18 2006
7 posts
Mar 5 2006
7 posts
Mar 4 2006
4 posts
Mar 19 2006
4 posts
Oakspear
No, T-Bone, you make a good point.
Despite our best efforts, it is difficult to be objective, to disregard training and teaching that was a major part of our lives.
Link to comment
Share on other sites
dmiller
Good Lord !! Took me at least 10 minutes, to see the *old woman!
And this was from 1915, no less. Bravo!
Edited by dmillerLink to comment
Share on other sites
T-Bone
Wow - thanks dmiller for posting the picture! I'm having a royal High School flashback! You mentioned you had a hard time seeing the old woman. That reminds me of those posters that are a pattern but if you look close there's a shark or something in the picture. I can NEVER see the shark.
Link to comment
Share on other sites
Amazingrace
There are just some things in life I can't make my mind up on and the JC/Trinity debate is one of them. In personal prayer and worship, I tend to lean towards Jesus Christ not being God and I wonder if that's because I've had more teaching on this belief, or simply because that's the one that's easier for me to believe.
I'm currently attending a teaching on and for the Trinity and I will do a little research outside this teaching. I grew up with a trinity belief, but honestly, I go back and forth on this and I do belive it's ok.
It's something I'm still trying to understand, but if I never come to a conclusion one way or the other, I don't believe it has any bearing on my afterlife. It doesent have a negative impact on how I worship now. Sometimes I embrace both concepts during the same week. Other weeks I feel differently.
I know there are all kinds of people out there who might think this is wrong... I'm not here to argue my belief or lack thereof.
dmiller, your picture does explain my stand (or position on the fence), and I have a book around here with many more just like that, and tons of those books where you see nothing but patterns until you've stared yourself silly and then the picture (sharks or whatever is hidden in the picture) jumps out at you. (Hint: you have to stare a really LONG time to see the picture.)
It is about seeking people who love... and for me... also... finding people with little love, being an example to them (fruits of the spirt come to mind). Some reject, but most want to know my secret. I love to plant seeds. Makes me know, as the song says, He (JC) IS a friend of mine. That's all I need for now.
Link to comment
Share on other sites
bliss
I feel the same way Amazing Grace, I flip flop . I am floored at the reminder of that picture Tbone!
I was reading the gospel of John today. NEVER really read it in TWI. What parts I did, was always with the TWI filter ON so I didn't have to "see" any trinity.
So reading it today, I'm saying "holy s#@T" I didn't see this before, or it is so clear here, then I go back to well..................
Then I see notes from the way in my bible. (I need a new one)
Perspective.
If I believe in the trinity, I will see the trinity.
If I believe he's not a part of the trinity, I will see it that way.
Amazing isn't it?
I don't think God cares, as long as we believe in Him and him.
Why do we want to define God in Human terms anyway?
Link to comment
Share on other sites
T-Bone
Bliss
"I feel the same way Amazing Grace, I flip flop . I am floored at the reminder of that picture Tbone! I was reading the gospel of John today. NEVER really read it in TWI. What parts I did, was always with the TWI filter ON so I didn't have to "see" any trinity…Why do we want to define God in Human terms anyway?"
Ditto for me too, Bliss, on the flip flop thing. But I'm not embarrassed or get uptight about it – I'm not writing any books about whether he's God or not - or drawing any intellectual lines in the sand…and I really like your last words: "Why do we want to define God in Human terms anyway?" And I know what you mean about reading the Bible with the TWI filter on…And when AmazingGrace talked about still leaning towards Jesus not being God in personal prayer and worship – I go "yeah, me too." I'll tell you what – doctrinally speaking I'm a mess – but I'm comfortable with that, I'm not leading any ministry or theological seminary. I'm not hell-bent on proving beyond a shadow of a doubt Jesus is God – I just don't know. But I'm working on removing the TWI glasses because they get some things out of focus. So, I have this sense of curiosity and excitement – believing that there's more to Jesus Christ than the narrow picture I got of him through my TWI goggles.
Not long after leaving TWI I was reading the gospel of John and noticed how sometimes as I read TWI explanations would automatically pop up in my head – even after getting a different Bible without my TWI notes. One day when I read John 1: 1 and 2 it was like seeing the alternate image in My Wife and Mother –in-Law. I was thinking about that experience as I read everyone's posts – got so excited I went up to the Attic and dug out my PFAL books…First I'll put the verses then quote VPW on them [VPW's words are in quotes and boldface].
John 1: 1, 2
"In the beginning was the Word, and the Word was with God, and the Word was God. The same was in the beginning with God." [King James Version]
VPW states the crux of his interpretation on pages 102 and 103, Chapter 8 "In the Beginning was the Word" of Power for Abundant Living: The Accuracy of the Bible "The key to understanding John 1:1 and 2 is the word "with." If any other Greek word were used for the word "with" except pros, the whole Bible would crumble. The word pros means "together with, yet distinctly independent of…This is its remarkable usage because it refutes the erroneous teaching that in the beginning Jesus Christ was with God to start everything. This is not what the Word says. It says that He was with Him, but the written Word was also with 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…This was all with God because of His foreknowledge."
On page 28 in Chapter 2 "Who is the Word?" of The Word's Way: Volume III, Studies in Abundant Living, copyright 1971, third printing 1976, VPW states, "How was this revealed Word with God? The Word was with God in His foreknowledge…This is what John 1: 1 literally says. The revealed Word was with God in His foreknowledge; the revealed Word was later to be manifested in writing as the Bible and in the flesh as Jesus Christ. How was Jesus with God in the beginning? In the same way that the written Word was with Him – in God's foreknowledge." And page 31, "Verse 2 could literally read, "The same [the written Word which is the Bible and the Word in the flesh which is Jesus Christ] was in the beginning with God [in His foreknowledge].""
Maybe it's me – maybe I'm being biased in my tendency to believe Jesus Christ is God – but I don't think VPW was justified in suggesting Jesus was in the beginning only in God's foreknowledge. I read the verse – and it sounds a lot like Genesis 1: 1. And is that sort of the interpretive key previous usage?
Edited by T-BoneLink to comment
Share on other sites
bliss
How dare you get out those books!!!!!!LOL
I didn't want to look at them yet, but since you brought it up....................
I would like some clarification on this also.
Mark, RAF, Evan??????
Any info on this word PROS?
T-Bone, are you going anywhere yet for spiritual learning?
Link to comment
Share on other sites
T-Bone
Bliss
"T-Bone, are you going anywhere yet for spiritual learning?"
Yeah, Grease Spot.
Link to comment
Share on other sites
markomalley
Pros: a preposition of direction; forward to, i.e. toward (with the genitive case, the side of, i.e. pertaining to; with the dative case, by the side of, i.e. near to; usually with the accusative case, the place, time, occasion, or respect, which is the destination of the relation, i.e. whither or for which it is predicated).
In this case it modifies the word theos -- used in the accusative case.
So, the phrase could be rendered: "the word was moving toward God"
Interesting thing, though...the next phrase (the Word was God). Word=God. God=Word.
There is a tremendous amount of theological information in these three expressions:
1) In the beginning (arche) was the Word. That means that the Word was there before creation.
2) The Word was with (moving toward) God.
3) The Word was God. Equivalence...
Probably more than you're looking for, but I hope it helps some...
(on edit, to correct a stupid grammatical error that I hadn't thought about since the seventh grade...with hearty thanks to Raf)
Edited by markomalleyLink to comment
Share on other sites
Raf
I don't know if Greek works the same way, but in English, a subject and "object" are both in the same case IF the verb is what is known as a linking verb. Linking verbs are neither transitive nor intransitive: they simply exist. It tells you that the subject isn't actually doing anything; it's being something. "To be" is the classic linking verb.
For example, I knock on your door and you ask:
"Who is it?"
Grammatically, the correct answer is:
"It is I."
The subject is "It."
The linking verb is "is."
The "object" is "I," but it is in the subjective case, not the objective (which would be "me").
When a noun follows a linking verb, it's in the subjective case and is referred to as a "predicate nominative."
All of which is to say I would expect both nouns to be in the nominative case when the verb in question is a linking verb.
In other words, Mark, your exposition on "The Word was God" may not quite prove anything, except the existence of grammar (assuming Greek grammar works the same as English in this case). We would not expect "God" to be in the dative case, because that would be poor grammar.
The shorter answer is that the word "pros" sometimes means exactly what Wierwille said it means, and it sometimes means other things.
Edited by RafLink to comment
Share on other sites
markomalley
Raf, of course you are correct.
My post has been duly corrected.
Link to comment
Share on other sites
CM
I think comparing John with Genesis is a good thing.
In the beginning was the word...and God said....
John speaks of the beginning -skips the entire old testament till John the baptist.
1In the beginning was the Word, and the Word was with God, and the Word was God.
2The same was in the beginning with God.
3All things were made by him; and without him was not any thing made that was made.
4In him was life; and the life was the light of men.
5And the light shineth in darkness; and the darkness comprehended it not.
6There was a man sent from God, whose name was John.
7The same came for a witness, to bear witness of the Light, that all men through him might believe.
8He was not that Light, but was sent to bear witness of that Light.
9That was the true Light, which lighteth every man that cometh into the world.
10He was in the world, and the world was made by him, and the world knew him not.
11He came unto his own, and his own received him not.
12But as many as received him, to them gave he power to become the sons of God, even to them that believe on his name:
13Which were born, not of blood, nor of the will of the flesh, nor of the will of man, but of God. 14And the Word was made flesh, and dwelt among us, (and we beheld his glory, the glory as of the only begotten of the Father,) full of grace and truth.
Link to comment
Share on other sites
Raf
Mark,
I would have let your post stand. I could easily be wrong about how Greek grammar works. :)
Link to comment
Share on other sites
markomalley
The key point I did let stand: the equivalence.
But you're right and I pulled a dumba$$. (The problem with being an autodidact is that sometimes you let the perfectly obvious slip for the more subtle point)
I do appreciate you pointing that out.
Link to comment
Share on other sites
T-Bone
Thanks Mark & Raf for the pros info - after thinking about the definitions another issue occurred to me. In the beginning if the Word was with God in foreknowledge only - or as VPW put it "in the mind of God" - then why use pros - together with yet distinctly independent of? Doesn't that suggest TWO SEPARATE entities? Am I just being a little too picky here? If it was just in God's thoughts - wouldn't it make more sense to say something like "In the beginning the Word was in God."?
Link to comment
Share on other sites
Cynic
Trinitarian exegesis typically asserts the John 1:1 statement “the Word was with God” distinguishes the Word (Jesus Christ) from God in a personal sense, while the statement “the Word was God” qualifies that the Word (Jesus Christ) is God in an ontological sense.
Contra modalism, the Son (the Word) and the Father (God) are distinct divine persons. Contra Arianism (and Socianianism), there is no subordination in nature between the Father and the Son.
As D. A. Reed has maintained on ex-Wayfer forums: The Father, the Son and the Holy Spirit are three whos, yet one what.
The Father and the Son are of the same essence, yet the Father is relationally God and Father to the Son. There is an order of relation and function among the Father, Son and Holy Spirit -- but no order of being. They are one being.
There is no adequate analogy for this among created existents.
Unitarian explanations of John 1:1 invariably render one or more of its propositions meaningless.
Edited by CynicLink to comment
Share on other sites
T-Bone
Thank you, Cynic, for sharing how some other denominations explain John 1: 1. I like checking out different perspectives – and even more so the thinking process that is behind a viewpoint. Our own beliefs are involved in the interpretation process.
The following is from Understanding Doctrine: What it is – and Why It Matters by Alister McGrath [McGrath's text is in boldface]: Doctrine interprets Scripture…It is a framework for the interpretation of Scripture which claims to be based upon Scripture itself [page 26]…A helpful way of thinking of the relation of doctrine to Scripture, probably suggested by a growing Victorian public interest in botanical gardens, was put forward by the nineteenth-century Scottish write Thomas Guthrie. Guthrie argued that Scripture is like nature, in which flowers and plants grow freely in their natural habitat, unordered by human hands. The human desire for orderliness leads to these same plants being collected and arranged in botanical gardens according to their species, in order that they can be individually studied in more detail. The same plants are found in different contexts – one of which is natural, the other of which is the result of human ordering. Doctrine represents the human attempt to order the ideas of Scripture, arranging them in a logical manner in order that their mutual relation can be better understood…[pages 28, 29]
Speaking about the doctrine of the Trinity McGrath says it is an attempt to bring together into a single formula the richness of the Christian understanding of God. For example, it holds together the following central elements of the biblical witness to the nature and purposes of God: - God created the world. – God redeemed us through Jesus Christ. – God is present in his church through the Spirit…The doctrine integrates these three elements into a greater whole…It is not meant to explain how God can be like this; it simply affirms that, according to the biblical witness, he is like this...[page 30]
To reiterate McGrath's ideas: Doctrine is man-made in that it is a framework – a tool for interpreting Scripture, a way that WE THINK select information should be organized. Doctrine is man's attempt to get the big picture…Maybe some arguments are really from people trying to explain how God can be like this in John 1: 1…It's hard to back down from our own theological positions and try to see what God is truly like.
Edited by T-BoneLink to comment
Share on other sites
GarthP2000
Very revealing and brutally honest depiction of the concept of dogma and doctrine, T-Bone. Unfortunately over the many years, there were, and still are some who seem to forget that depiction, and go to treat dogma/doctrine as far more than what it really is, and give it the undue regard/reverence that it doesn't deserve.
Which goes a long way towards explaining why religious persecution often rears its ugly head, and why many have been murdered for it over the centuries.
<_<
Edited by GarthP2000Link to comment
Share on other sites
CM
in another way of thinking - scripture is given by inspiration of God and profitable for doctrine
which turns it around to scripture not being the doctrine itself
the ever present now and the unchangable God breathing scripture
profiting doctrine which is instruction in righteousness
Link to comment
Share on other sites
CM
kind of like a business - to put it another way
the business produces the profit
just exploring different ways of thinking
so don't anyone get upset now
we are free to think right?
Link to comment
Share on other sites
T-Bone
Garth, I hope I didn't come off as being super-critical of doctrine, or of systematic theology - I was trying to make the point that sometimes we're not aware of how our beliefs shape our viewpoint...CM, I like your phrase "just exploring different ways of thinking."...
Link to comment
Share on other sites
GarthP2000
T-Bone,
No worries. I was just focusing on the man made characteristic of it, thus putting a more realistic perspective on what doctrine and dogma and related items are and always have been. And as a result, shows why it's not, and never has been, some heniously offensive and immoral thing to question, publically challenge, and even to walk away from a doctrine that one no longer accepts.
Link to comment
Share on other sites
Cynic
T-Bone,
Jesus was the Messiah promised in Old Testament scriptures. Jesus was born of a virgin. Jesus suffered and died. Jesus made propitiation for sins. Jesus was raised from the dead. Jesus ascended into heaven. Jesus will return from heaven. Jesus will have his elect gathered. Jesus will render vengeance to them who know not God and who do not obey the gospel.
The preceding paragraph consists of a topical collection of propositional statements based on indications of various scriptures. There is no single place in Scripture that states all that is affirmed by those statements. The statements have a historical/eschatological aspect and an aspect of communicating proper belief, thus are doctrinal in character.
The statements elude McGrath’s rather Kantian account of the relationship between Scripture and doctrine, however, because they function to repeat biblical testimony, rather than to interpret it. I think it doubtful that you or McGrath could find many thoughtful and informed theologians, philosophers, teachers, accountants, mechanics, painters, barflies, or strippers either to conclude the statements are vacant of doctrinal content or to separate them from Scripture by characterizing them as a humanly constructed interpretive framework.
You have cited McGrath to bolster your position that the Trinitarian explanation of John 1:1 I cited is man-made – and, thus, is doctrinally biographical of Trinitarians, rather than obligatory. In part, you are somewhat correct, since talk of subsistences, being, substance, nature and essence involves philosophical (ontological) categories that go some distance from what is biblically indicated, and even occasionally becomes an object of critical discussion among Trinitarians themselves (e.g. http://www.ccir.ed.ac.uk/~jad/vantil-list/...8/msg00032.html ).
The problem for Arians, modalists and Socinians, however, is not that they disbelieve and oppose what is biblically inexplicit. The problem is that they, without exception, disbelieve and oppose what is biblically explicit. Their objections are objections against the biblically revealed Christ -- who existed eternally, who was (in some respect) distinct from God, and who was (in some respect) God.
The Jesus in whom Socianian Wayfers and ex-Wayfers think they believe is a temporally beginning figure who did not exist in the beginning. He was not with God. He was not God. He did not come down from heaven, nor ascend to where he was before. He was not, and is not, what John’s gospel declares him -- the eternal Word and Son of God who became flesh -- to be.
The issue for these folks is not an issue with systematic or dogmatic theology. The issue for these folks is an issue in and about themselves. It is whether they hold in their persons some grotesquely distorted and deficient view of Christ, or whether the Christ they have conceptualized will be deemed by the Father to be the Christ sent by Him and revealed by Scripture at all.
Link to comment
Share on other sites
TheEvan
Cynic, I was tracking with your above post until the following:
...in which you seem to imply that doctrine, as expressed, is a salvation issue.
I would submit that each of us hold a distorted or deficient view of Christ. Arguing that the Arian/Socinian view constitutes belief in "another" Jesus and therefore disqualifies its adherents from salvation goes too far, imo. While I find the VP description (and its ostensibly clarified/improved derivatives) of the godhead indefensible, I am unwilling to wrest the function of "only wise judge" from the Judge Himself.
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.