Must One Believe in the Trinity to be Saved?
This is the first post in an occasional series that will appear on this blog, dealing with frequently asked questions (FAQ) about the doctrine of the Trinity. This series will not be providing an overview of the biblical teaching concerning the Trinity. For such an overview, please see my outline study on the Trinity, which cites about a thousand pertinent biblical references. If you have a question on the Trinity not addressed in that outline study and that you would like to see answered here, please email us with your question, and we will consider it for inclusion here. You can find our email address by visiting our ministry’s home page and clicking on “Email” in the upper right corner.
The first question I will address is perhaps one of the most popular objections to the doctrine, even though it does not address the positive evidence for the Trinity in Scripture. Here it is: If belief in the Trinity is essential for salvation, why is the doctrine not clearly or plainly set out, in so many words, in the Bible? Why does the Bible never say “God is a Trinity” or “There are three persons in the one God,” or something equally explicit as an affirmation of the doctrine? And if no such statement is there in the Bible, how can belief in the doctrine be essential for salvation?
The short answer is that it is not quite accurate to say that belief in the doctrine of the Trinity is essential for salvation. Doctrinal accuracy on any theological subject is in any case at most a litmus test or barometer of the genuineness of a person’s salvation, not a prerequisite for receiving the gift of salvation. There is no theology exam on which a person needs a passing score before God will accept that person’s trust in him for salvation. We are saved by God’s grace through faith, that is, through our trust and reliance on God’s gift of salvation in Christ (Rom. 3:21-26; Eph. 2:8-10; Tit. 3:5-8). On the other hand, deviation from the basics of sound Christian doctrine can be evidence that a person is either immature in faith (see Acts 18:25-26) or has not genuinely come into a saving faith relationship with Christ (Rom. 16:17-18). Resistance to doctrinal correction would generally be a tip-off that the latter problem is the case.
That having been said, what does the Bible tell us we need to know about the Trinity? Obviously, it does not tell us that we need to use words like Trinity or formulas like three persons in one God. These do not appear in the Bible. On the other hand, we are expected to make a faith commitment to the three persons of the Father, Son, and Holy Spirit, as is evident from the injunction to make disciples by “baptizing them in the name of the Father and the Son and the Holy Spirit” (Matt. 28:19). Someone who denies that the Son is a divine person or who refuses to honor the Son with religious devotion, reverence, and worship, is giving evidence that he or she has not made that faith commitment and so has not yet come to a genuine relationship with the Son. Jesus himself stated, “Unless you believe that I am [he], you will die in your sins” (John 8:24). This means, minimally, that we must accept Jesus for who he really is if we are to be assured of salvation. So, if Jesus is indeed God incarnate, as the Bible does in fact teach, then we need to know and accept this truth about his identity.
Those who are saved as Christian believers, then, will have faith in the Father, Son, and Holy Spirit as God, although they may not be able to articulate this in a doctrinal way very well at first. As they come to understand what the Bible says about this subject in conversation with the rest of the church, such believers normally will assent to the doctrine of the Trinity as the church’s historic and best articulation of the divine nature and relations of the Father, Son, and Holy Spirit.
If a person rejects the doctrine of the Trinity, that person has cut himself off from the church. It is interesting to note that all of the major (and as far as I know all of the minor) heretical religious versions of Christianity agree on one thing: they all reject the doctrine of the Trinity. This does seem to be the crucial, decisive theological issue separating orthodox from heretical forms of Christianity. Is it possible for someone in a non-Trinitarian religious group to be saved? I suppose it is, but it isn’t recommended. Again, doctrinal error may be a sign of spiritual lostness, or of spiritual immaturity, or perhaps of some other type of problem, and we aren’t in a position to judge definitively whether other people are saved or not. Nevertheless, we have a responsibility to take a stand for the integrity of the church’s teaching, and cannot compromise on so basic a doctrine as the Trinity. We can do so with full confidence that what we are defending is biblical, because all of the essential elements of the doctrine of the Trinity are clearly taught in the Bible.
This is from my new blog. Feel free to visit.
If you enjoyed this post, make sure you subscribe to my RSS feed!- Where I stand on all things part 1
- A Test of Essentials and Non-Essentials
- "The Trinity is Like 3-in-1 Shampoo". . . And Other Stupid Statements
- Theological Word of the Day: Perseverance of the Saints
- Essentials and non-essentials: Observations
Print This Post

Tom on 21 Oct 2008 at 1:10 pm #
Rob,
I’m not sure where to go with this, as you seem to have given a nice synopsis of the situation. Sure, the Trinity is there to see, and is sound doctrine. The basics of salvation don’t include it, so no, belief in the Trinity doesn’t really have any part of the salvation requirements.
I can’t see the thief on the cross understanding the Trinity, what he understood was his own sinful condition, and the perfection and innocence of the King crucified next to him. He acknowledged his condition and called on the Lord for deliverance. Case closed, soul saved.
That’s the short version, but It seems like enough for me.
RB on 21 Oct 2008 at 10:33 pm #
“”On the other hand, deviation from the basics of sound Christian doctrine can be evidence that a person is either immature in faith (see Acts 18:25-26) or has not genuinely come into a saving faith relationship with Christ (Rom. 16:17-18). Resistance to doctrinal correction would generally be a tip-off that the latter problem is the case.”"
Just out of couriosity, can you tell me what “doctrine” they taught to the earlier christians” Now before you put yourself in contempt of the Scriptures, you were not there when these letters were written, so you would be lie-ing to say that Paul taught them trinity……Correct? Also, can you prove Scripturally that this[yours] is the “”correct doctrine”" that Paul and the Apostles taught? – i do not think so…
And it is judging another to say that they are immature as to Growth, especially if they chose not to believe in the doctrine of the trinity. Which has its roots in the blood of the early church and christians, yet claiming it was a revelation from God ‘after’ the Scriptures were written, Resistance to ‘doctrinal correction’ as you put it, is a way short of saying that “if you do not believe like me, you are not saved” – who gave you this right? Surely not God?
Luke Geraty on 21 Oct 2008 at 10:56 pm #
Good read. I’m currently in the midst of trying to think this topic through. The city in which I pastor in has a strong Oneness Pentecostal “stronghold” and I have had quite a few people ask me this very question.
Historically I’ve had a major concern about Modalism and had previously come to the conclusion that it would be highly unlikely to deny the Trinity and be “saved.” However, after having a good discussion with a friend, it was pointed out that the major issue within the Oneness Pentecostal stream is actually related to soteriology. The emphasis on ‘works righteousness’ and the emphasis on tongues required for salvation are more problematic than not believing in the doctrine of the Trinity.
Anyway, I’m still trying to figure out a good answer for this question. I really appreciated when Bowman states, “e have a responsibility to take a stand for the integrity of the church’s teaching, and cannot compromise on so basic a doctrine as the Trinity.”
Thanks for this read. I look forward to further thoughts…
Phil McCheddar on 22 Oct 2008 at 4:44 am #
Tom wrote: “I can’t see the thief on the cross understanding the Trinity. What he understood was … the perfection and innocence of the King crucified next to him. He … called on the Lord for deliverance.”
Tom ~ Perhaps it could be argued that the thief on the cross did understand the Trinity (or at least the Binity), not by formulating the doctrine in explicit words but rather by his disposition to Jesus. Since he understood that the man on the cross next to him was a king and was perfectly innocent like no other human being, and since he called on that man for deliverance rather than on God directly, what does that imply about the thief’s estimation of who Jesus was? Surely whoever we call upon for help in the moment of our extreme need (e.g. at the point of death) is God to us, whether we explicitly address that person as ‘God’ or not. Therefore, is it not fair to say that the thief did believe in the Trinity, if you use the word ‘believe’ in the biblical sense which is more than mere cognitive assent to a doctrine? Although he had not yet joined up all the dots to formulate a tidy articulated formula of the Trinity and he did not yet consciously recognise the radical repercussions that his cry to Jesus had on traditional Jewish montheism, he did live in the truth of the Trinity while hanging on the cross.
britphil on 22 Oct 2008 at 5:21 am #
“The short answer is that it is not quite accurate to say that belief in the doctrine of the Trinity is essential for salvation. Doctrinal accuracy on any theological subject is in any case at most a litmus test or barometer of the genuineness of a person’s salvation, not a prerequisite for receiving the gift of salvation. There is no theology exam on which a person needs a passing score before God will accept that person’s trust in him for salvation. We are saved by God’s grace through faith, that is, through our trust and reliance on God’s gift of salvation in Christ.”
Hi Rob
Many thanks for your very clear and lucid explanation. I love the paragraph above. I think we can so subtly easily fall into the trap of believing that a person’s salvation is based purely on doctrinal accuracy rather than by God’s grace through faith.
Hi Luke
“Good read. I’m currently in the midst of trying to think this topic through. The city in which I pastor in has a strong Oneness Pentecostal “stronghold” and I have had quite a few people ask me this very question.”
Hope you don’t mind, but could you enlighten me a bit more on the “Oneness Pentecostal” theology. It’s not something I know too much about!
Phil McCheddar on 22 Oct 2008 at 8:58 am #
RB ~ Although you addressed post #2 to Robert Bowman I hope you don’t mind if I respond to you too?
I think God revealed the doctrine of the Trinity in the teaching of the Lord Jesus as well as in the NT epistles. This revelation did not consist of a systematic treatise on the subject (such as Robert Bowman’s book “Putting Jesus in His Place”) but as fragmentary allusions in word & deed. All the raw data for the doctrine of the Trinity can be found in the Gospels, even without considering the extra evidence in the NT epistles. Understandably it took a long time for the early church to grasp the implications of this man Jesus of Nazareth assuming divine prerogatives*. But the gradual evolution of the formal doctrine of the Trinity is not a case of the early church fabricating a heresy but of clarifying & articulating something that was already active in their thoughts about Jesus and in their actions towards him. By stumbling towards a refined formal definition of the Trinity the early church was not adding to Jesus’ teaching but entering more thoroughly into it.
* Examples of Jesus assuming divine prerogatives:
He expected his followers to deny themselves and relinquish everything for his sake. He did not merely show people how to live (which is what a prophet would do) but he called people to devote themselves to him and to give him their ultimate allegiance. He claimed to be the one who will judge all people and decide their eternal destiny. He claimed that the basis of his judgment will not be people’s works or service but their relationship with him. He described the ultimate punishment as eternal separation from himself. He claimed to be the only thing which will truly satisfy a man’s soul. He invited people to depend on him for peace, rest, joy, strength, and everything else needed to cope with life. To depend on someone as your ultimate helper, provider, and guardian is de facto treating that being as your God, whether you call him God or not. The message of the prophets such as Moses, Elijah, and Isaiah was: “Come to God. Follow God. Obey God.” But Jesus’ message was thoroughly egocentric: “Come to me. Follow me. Obey me.” etc. etc.
Why didn’t Jesus explicitly claim “I am God”? I think for several reasons.
(1) To avoid premature arrest and execution.
(2) Some of his self-disclosure had a ‘time-release’ nature (e.g. see Matthew 17:9).
(3) Instead of spoon-feeding people with explicit doctrine, he could communicate the truth more effectively by presenting evidence indirectly and leaving people to join the dots together for themselves to form the right conclusion (cf. Matthew 11:2-6). This method forces people to think through the ramifications and significance of the issue instead of just parroting a creed superficially.
(4) It would have misled and confused his monotheistic Jewish hearers because they did not yet understand that God is more than one person and so they would have naturally assumed Jesus was claiming to be God the Father.
(5) In coming to earth Jesus relinquished his legitimate claim to the prestige God is entitled to. His focus was to demonstrate self-humbling, submission, obedience, and a servant-like spirit, and so it would be incongruous for him to trumpet his deity.
(6) If Jesus’ contemporaries had regarded him prior to his crucifixion as the awesome, transcendent God, they would not have treated him as a human being (e.g. they would not have dared rub shoulders with him or recline at table with him to share a meal). Jesus had to tread a very fine line in not letting his deity eclipse his humanity. His humanity was essential to him fulfilling his role as our high priest.
Luke Geraty on 22 Oct 2008 at 10:08 am #
britphil – no problem! Oneness Pentecostalism is radically different from general Pentecostals for numerous reasons. Groups such as the Assemblies of God or the Foursquare Church hold to the orthodox doctrine of the Trinity and believe in Justification by grace through faith (though in the Arminian sense).
Oneness Pentecostals do not believe that God is in three persons but would emphasize that God manifested Himself as the Father, Jesus, and now the Holy Spirit. Ultimately they deny the preexistence of God the Son and believe that Jesus is the Father.
There is also a serious emphasis on speaking in tongues as being more than just the initial sign of being baptized in the Holy Spirit, as classic Pentecostalism has stressed. In the Oneness view, speaking in tongues is a necessary component to salvation. Furthermore, within the ranks it is very clear that ‘works’ plays a large role within how one is viewed.
Of course, these are simply what I have read through the writings of Oneness theologian David Bernard, Greg Boyd’s Oneness Pentecostals and the Trinity, Robert Morey’s The Trinity: Evidence and Issues, E. Calvin Beisner’s “Jesus Only” Churches, and James White’s The Forgotten Trinity. I should also mention that several people within the congregation that I serve and lead have come out of a Oneness background and I’m currently involved in relationships with people who are in the Oneness stream. We’ve had some interesting conversations
britphil on 22 Oct 2008 at 11:42 am #
Cheers for the info Luke. Much appreciated.
“I should also mention that several people within the congregation that I serve and lead have come out of a Oneness background and I’m currently involved in relationships with people who are in the Oneness stream. We’ve had some interesting conversations”
Sounds like fun(!), but I guess it must be draining at times!
Spending quite a lot of time with folks in charismatic circles I have come across the emphasis on tongues being essential to salvation before, which I have never bought into and don’t expect I ever will! It is really interesting to hear that some people have come out of the movement to share the more traditional orthodox view! I guess the baggage carried can be pretty difficult to wade through at times.
I hail from Pentecostal stock on my mother’s grandfather’s side of the family and our church has very close links with a local AOG fellowship, though they are of the more Orthodox Pentecostal type.
“Furthermore, within the ranks it is very clear that ‘works’ plays a large role within how one is viewed.”
I don’t have a problem with this so long as good works are seen as evidence of salvation rather than a means to salvation!
Luke Geraty on 22 Oct 2008 at 12:03 pm #
britphil,
Yeah, sounds like you and I have similar convictions. I am Charismatic in the “Third-wave” sense (e.g. Vineyard movement). I speak in tongues but have a different view of it in comparison with classic Pentecostals. I reject it as being the “initial evidence” and certainly do not believe it is required for salvation. In my view it is one of the gifts of the Holy Spirit… sovereignly distributed by the Lord, though I believe we are encouraged to pray to have these gifts.
Yeah, I’m getting off topic. I apologize. I am Trinitarian and Charismatic and Reformed. Yee ha!
IndioAtuey on 22 Oct 2008 at 4:48 pm #
The best explanation for the Trinity I have found is in:
“Philosophical Foundations for a Christian Worldview, Chapt 29, pg 594-595
Argument for God being a plurality of persons:
“God is by definition* the greatest conceivable being. As the greatest conceivable being, God must be perfect. Now a perfect being must be a loving being. For love is a moral perfection; it is better for a person to be loving rather than unloving. God therefore must be a perfectly loving being. Now it is of the very nature of love to give oneself away. Love reaches out to another person rather than centering wholly in oneself. So if God is perfectly loving by his very nature, he must be giving himself in love to another. But who is that other? It cannot be any created person, since creation is a result of God’s free will, not a result of his nature. It belongs to God’s very essence to love, but it does not belong to his essence to create. So we can imagine a possible world in which God is perfectly loving and yet no created person exist. So created persons cannot sufficiently explain whom God loves. Moreover, contemporary cosmology makes it plausible that created persons have not always existed. But God is eternally loving. So again created persons alone are insufficient to account for God’s being perfectly loving. It therefore follows that the other whom God’s love is necessarily directed must be internal to God himself.
In other words, God is not a single, isolated person, as Unitarian forms of theism like Islam hold; rather God is a plurality of persons, as the Christian doctrine of the Trinity affirms. On the Unitarian view God is a person who does not give himself away essentially in love for another; he is focused essentially only on himself. Hence , he cannot be the most perfect being. But on the Christian view, God is a triad of persons in eternal, self giving love relationship. Thus since God is essentially loving, the doctrine of the trinity is more plausible than any Unitarian doctrine of God.”
Jason Dulle on 22 Oct 2008 at 5:35 pm #
Luke,
I am an Oneness Pentecostal. Some of your description accurately portrayed what I would term the “layman’s perspective” within the OP movement, but it does not accurately portray the more official, “scholarly perspective” of the movement.
It is true that Oneness Pentecostals do not believe God is three persons. We believe God is one person, and Jesus Christ is that one personal God incarnate. So it’s misleading to say we “deny the preexistence of God the Son.” We simply do not believe there is any such person as God the Son. We affirm the preexistence of Christ’s deity, but understand that preexistent person to be the one, uni-personal God, YHWH, not the second of three eternal persons. This is the universal understanding of both laymen and scholar alike.
Also, by saying OPs believe God has manifested Himself as Father, Jesus, and now the Holy Spirit, this implies that we are Sabellians. This is not true. No OPs (probably not even Sabellius himself) believe God has successively revealed Himself as Father, then Son, and now Spirit. God has always been Holy Spirit.
Also, as an OP, I would never say Jesus is the Father (though many laymen speak in such a way). I would say Jesus’ deity is numerically and personally identical to that of the Father. This is a big distinction. Clearly there is a distinction between the Father and Son, but Oneness Pentecostals do not see this distinction as personal in nature (two divine persons), but rather incarnational (a distinction between God’s existence as God, and that same God’s existence as man).
As for tongues, it’s not true that OPs claim tongues is a necessary component of salvation, although I understand how this conception has developed. OPs claim the same thing Evangelicals claim: Being filled with the Spirit is necessary for salvation. But OPs are persuaded that when people are filled with the Spirit, they will speak in tongues. No one thinks the evidence of the Spirit is what saves (tongues), but the substance to which the evidence points (the infilling of the Spirit). Just as smoke gives evidence of the presence of fire, tongues gives evidence of the Spirit. So it’s not that OPs think tongues is necessary for salvation, but rather that tongues will necessarily be present when one has received the saving Spirit.
As for works, I know firsthand that many OPs struggle with legalism (as do many holiness movements), but I also know that this is not the official teaching of OPs. The official teaching is that one is saved by grace through faith. Could you find OPs who say different? Sure, just as I could find Trinitarians who say different. There is often a divide between the guiding theology of a movement as represented in its scholars, and the way it is understood and/or represented by pastors and laymen. But one’s critique of a theology or movement needs to be directed at both its scholars and common practitioners. While the common practitioners within Oneness Pentecostalism are often guilty of some of the things you described (and you would not be wrong to point that out), this is not true of Oneness Pentecostalism as a theological system itself.
RB on 23 Oct 2008 at 11:51 am #
Phil McCheddar,
Thanks for the reply.yet i read words like ‘allusion’ ‘assumimg’ ‘evolution’ and they tend to make me read your direct reply as such, an assumption.
Yet, you stated nothing in regards to the history that embeds the doctrine, before it was an historically ‘forced’ doctrine. Yes, i did say ‘forced’. Many died at the hands and the command of the initiators of this doctrine, but we do not want to admit this do we?. They were disemboweled so to speak, beheaded, etc., etc., and all this at the Name of God as a ‘God revealed” doctrine. This seems right to you, that today we resemble the same attutide in saying that one is not ’saved’ immature’ and possibly a ‘heretic’ because they will not ‘follow the same belief’ as yourself?
So i ask you, you support what has its roots in an all out blood-bath against the Worshippers of God just to support and incorporate into the ‘church’ what man ‘believes’ is the “”correct doctrine”"?
Rob Bowman on 23 Oct 2008 at 7:56 pm #
RB,
You have claimed twice that many people were killed at the behest of those who initiated the doctrine of the Trinity, but this is simply false. The theologians who formulated the doctrine of the Trinity did so in the second, third, and fourth centuries, before the Christian church had any power whatsoever to execute anyone. Even in later centuries, when European governments were officially Christian and in some cases executed heretics, the number of people who were executed simply for denying the doctrine of the Trinity was quite small (though one was too many).
In any case, your criticism is unhelpful if you don’t tell us what you think the church ought to teach in place of the doctrine of the Trinity. To what religious group do you belong? What is your view of the Father, Son, and Holy Spirit? “I know what you are against; what are you for?” (that’s Emile deBecque’s line in the play South Pacific).
rayner markley on 23 Oct 2008 at 8:40 pm #
IndioAtuey, the argument you present for the Trinity based on God’s loving nature shows a cogent picture, but it’s not convincing and there are other possibilities. The purpose of love and the result of love are creation—creation of new life. Creation is not an accident, nor need it be a willful act done simply for His own pleasure. It is a logical and natural extension of His loving essence. I see no evidence for the Trinity there.
An argument is sometimes given that everything God does is for His own pleasure. That brings to mind a self-centered monarch who thinks his subjects and domain exist for himself alone, but it is contrary to God’s nature of love. Jesus, the humble servant, taught us quite a different aspect of God.
We are dealing here in an area with little or no evidence in Scripture or nature. Who is to say that our universe is the only creation that the eternal God ever made? He may have other brides too.
RB on 23 Oct 2008 at 9:11 pm #
Rob,
Lets start with a document that pre-dates the Nicene Counsel that made claim to the doctrine and that stated that it ‘MUST’ be beilieved in, Athanasian Creed. I direct your attention to line 28 which states:
28. Qui vult ergo salvos esse, ita de trinitate sentiat.
28. He therefore that will be saved, must thus think of the Trinity.
You see, here, well before the Council of Nicene it was a “”must” to believe in this doctrine, even today just by your blog and reply – you even stated that some were executed for “heresies” thus being related to this doctrine as well, you are insistant that one “must” believe in it to be saved.
Yet i ask you show me this in the Scriptures? That i must believe in the doctrine to be saved, my Bible does not state this nor does it teach this…..Why do you?
RB on 23 Oct 2008 at 9:22 pm #
sorry for the second, i missed the timer….
As to teaching… do not teach it and just leave it be. why teach a doctrine that has so much controversy embedded within its context that many are divided and churches are divided. It seems apparent to methat should God had wanted it to be taught and practiced then it would be in a Unified Glorification to Christ our Beloved Redeemer and to God our Almighty Heavenly Father.
Why teach and support divisions to the Unity of the Body of Christ?
C Michael Patton on 23 Oct 2008 at 11:45 pm #
RB, all dogma will cause divisions. Who is Christ? Don’t you think people have divided over this? What books belong in the Bible? Have they divided here? Who’s is Christ? Isn’t this a point of division?
In the end, you are going to have to have no dogma whatsoever to side-step divisions, great or small. In fact, aren’t you causing division by not affirming the Trinity here on this blog?
In truth, you have ever right and obligation to act and believe according to your conscious. No one here is going to fault you (or kill you!). But to argue that a major reason why the Trinity is wrong because it causes divisions is just beyond that type of argument’s ability to prove or even lend credence toward.
Phil McCheddar on 24 Oct 2008 at 7:17 am #
Hello RB
If your love for Jesus makes your love for yourself seem like hatred in comparison, and if you have relinquished everything for Jesus’ sake, and if you honor Jesus as highly as you honor Almighty God, and if you thank Jesus’ executive decision for your salvation, and if you depend ultimately on Jesus to satisfy your soul and give you peace, rest, joy, ability, etc., and if knowing Jesus is an indispensable part of experiencing eternal life, then you are de facto worshipping him as your God, whether you call him God or not.
And if you believe the Holy Spirit’s instructions to the Apostles consisted of relaying information which He (the Spirit) heard from God (see John 16:13), and if you believe the Holy Spirit sometimes intercedes to God through your prayers (see Romans 8:27), then you de facto regard the Holy Spirit as a distinct ‘person’ from God the Father.
And if you believe the Holy Spirit is the same as the Spirit of God, then I don’t see how you can regard the Holy Spirit as an entity other than the uncreated eternal divine being.
So if you say ‘Yes’ to all the above ‘if’ clauses, I would say you believe in the Trinity whether you say you do or not.
I understood Rob Bowman to be saying that as a young Christian grows in knowledge and understanding of what the Bible teaches, he will be increasingly likely to affirm all the ‘if’ clauses listed above, in which case it follows that he will be increasingly likely to recognise that the essence of the doctrine of the Trinity is biblical.
I think you confuse alluding & implying with assuming & fabricating, but they are not the same.
RB on 24 Oct 2008 at 7:19 am #
MP,
well i am impressed that you answer this and not rob, yet i am not against it causing divisions for it has from the very beginning, i debate that it is Scripturally correct in that from the beginning of its conception it is imputed as a “must” for Salvation – Wrong!
And i would think that you of all people would know this………but then again i could be wrong about you.
RB on 24 Oct 2008 at 9:51 am #
Phil McCheddar,
True, I cannot deny what you have wrote, but I do not attribute this to a ‘trinity’ as you ‘assume’ and ‘allude’ to. Although, they may be attributed to ‘if’ clauses, they are for the most part Scriptural statements.
Yet in John 16:13, how do you ‘know’ that what you say of a ‘trinity’ is Truth, beit that you [probably] as well as many see this ‘doctrine’ as a ‘must’ for Salvation, which need I remind you is not Scriptural nor any where near Biblicallly correct in this implication or statement? To imply that one needs to believe in this formulated doctrine in order to receive Salvation has made man the supplier of Salvation and not that of God.
As to Ro 8:27, lets put v26, v28 back and re-read the short excerpt correctly. The Spirit, as an intercessor before the Throne for us, actually helps in our mis-guided and mis-conceived prayers to the Almighty Father above. Why? Because He that searches the hearts of men knows the mind of Spirit doing so in Accordance to the Will of God, so that by this we will know everything works to Gods Glory and purpose.
Then I can see proper interpretation, to that of the Spirit being our helper in our petitions to the Almighty Father. Yet this short passage say’s nothing as to what you claim in it being a ‘trinity’, but rather helping us to understand the relationship between the Father, the Intercessory work of the Spirit, in regards to our relationship with the Father as being His children.
So I would take your statement:
“….in which case it follows that he will be increasingly likely to recognise that the essence of the doctrine of the Trinity is biblical.”
That should they not, then you and your brethren would claim that he is not saved? Or, you and your brethren would take purposeful steps to “teach” him this ‘doctrine’.
“I think you confuse alluding & implying with assuming & fabricating, but they are not the same.”
So then why do you use these terms interchangeably to explain what is claimed to be unexplainable? You yourself used ‘assume’ or are you saying now that you are ’alluding’?
Luke Geraty on 24 Oct 2008 at 10:21 am #
Jason Dulle,
First off, thank you for your contribution and response! I appreciate how gentle and irenic your tone was, and I hope and pray that my initial comments did not come across any different. That being said, I have several questions for you, since you’re the resident Oneness voice
Interesting. Could you provide me with some names and references that would be of the more scholarly perspective. Thus far I have managed to only gather up a few books clearly written for the “layman” and several of David Bernard’s contributions. Bernard does not appear to write with much scholastic “weight,” so I’d like to be directed to other sources if you could! The more academic, the better!
That being said, what concern is there within the movement that there seems to be such a large disconnect between the “scholarly perspective” and the “layman’s perspective,” assuming there is this disconnect? I have had conversations with Oneness Pastors and they have generally reflected exactly what I had previously described!
While I would agree that many Trinitarian “laymen” may not be able to explain the doctrine of the Trinity as clearly as those of us with formal educations and clearly defined terms, I’ve not heard or encountered a lot of people who could not sum up the doctrine rather well. Obviously there are some exceptions here and there… but you probably understand my point. I’d love to read your thoughts!
While I would disagree with the Oneness position, I must again stress that I’ve been told by several Oneness Pastors what I had expressed. There has always been what I sensed an emphasis on the Father in the past, Jesus the Son during His earthly ministry, and the work of the Spirit in the present age (while maintaining that Jesus was and is the Father and the Spirit). Perhaps I’ve misunderstood. I realize that you clarify this point and would disagree with those who state that Jesus is the Father… but I certainly have heard it expressed that way.
Well, as I previously stated, I’ve “been there, done that” in the sense of a Pentecostal background (I did 3.5 years of my undergrad in the AOG). What seems quite clear, though, is that essentially tongues is equated as being necessary for salvation!
You may communicate it differently (as it appears you do), but what the vast majority of folks I know and talk to (and have read) seem to be hearing is that tongues is necessary for salvation. As far as I can tell, there is very little emphasis on Justification in the historic Protestant sense (by grace through faith). Are there any well known works within the Oneness tradition that address this?
The same issues seem to arise in relation to water baptism. While I’m not one who holds to the belief that baptism is purely symbolic, I certainly would reject baptismal rejection. Where do Oneness folks stand?
My concern with both of these beliefs is (a) biblical, (b) theological, and (c) practical. In the communities that I have been in, I have yet to meet a Oneness Pentecostal who communicated the Gospel apart from stressing speaking in tongues and baptism in Jesus name. I guess my primary concern goes right to the heart of the matter: are Oneness Pentecostals born-again or are they deceived with a ‘works-righteousness’ effort? To be faith, I have the same concern about a lot of Protestants
Your last paragraph was very interesting to read. It sounds like you have been a “maverick” (pun intended) within the Oneness tradition! I was actually unaware of any Oneness scholars, so that has me hungry to read! Any direction you could give would be much appreciated.
Related to this issue: what kind of training do most Oneness pastors receive? Is formal education a significant step or is it more in line with most Pentecostal movements that seem to stress more of what I call “Spirit training” than academic?
Jason, once again I want to thank you for your response and I hope my response comes across in a way that simply communicates to you that I have many questions and lots of ideas that may or may not be correct. Actually, I think a lot of us Evangelicals (Charismatic and non) are interested in learning more about what Oneness theology is
Blessings,
Luke
Phil McCheddar on 24 Oct 2008 at 11:09 am #
Hello RB
Contrary to what you assume about me, I don’t think “one needs to believe in this formulated doctrine in order to receive salvation”, nor would I “take purposeful steps to teach this [formulated] doctrine” to a professing Christian who denied it.
My references to John 16:13 and Romans 8:27 were a very brief attempt to use the Bible to show that the Holy Spirit is not merely a personification of an impersonal entity, unlike the lady called Wisdom in Proverbs chapter 8.
Romans 8:27 says the Holy Spirit intercedes to the Father for us. It seems difficult to understand this as figurative language in which an impersonal attribute of God is being personified since intercession is a form of communication between two centres of consciousness. It also rules out the idea that “the Spirit” is merely an alias for God the Father. See also Revelation 22:17.
John 16:13 describes the Holy Spirit hearing information from God/Jesus and passing it on to the apostles. Again such a statement seems absurd if the Spirit is merely an impersonal attribute of God or an alias of God.
I think the formal definitions of the Trinity do not purport to be a final and definitive statement about what God is. Any God who could be so packaged would be an idol. What they aim to do instead is to cut off blind alleys. So when the very first Christological heresy (Docetism) turned up it was condemned – not because the Church enjoyed philosophical logic-chopping but because you cannot speak with integrity about Christ without speaking about his humanity. The point about orthodoxy is that it is a doxa. It is about right worship and we cannot worship God properly unless we can speak about Him with some kind of integrity. The various heresies which cropped up prevented such speech & worship in the eyes of the Church and were therefore condemned.
The creeds of the early church and modern statements of faith were hammered out mainly as a defensive reaction against the threat of heresy rather than as a proactive proclamation of the truth. Therefore they tend to consist of caveats against misunderstandings of trinitiarian thought instead of giving a comprehensive, balanced view of God. So they are more of a negative statement of what God is not (e.g. tritheism), rather than a positive statement of what God is.
Personally I find many formal statements of the Trinity doctrine unsatisfactory because they do not (in my opinion) give enough weight to the subordination of the Son & the Spirit to the Father. But I still believe that both the Son and the Spirit are uncreated and eternally co-existent with God the Father, and I believe Father and Son and Spirit have relationships one with the other, and I only worship one God.
I am sorry but I don’t follow what you are saying in your last paragraph.
RB on 25 Oct 2008 at 7:53 pm #
Well, Phil,
Interesting, so if you do not feel comfortable than why the long dialogue to persuade me? if you do not feel or believe properly persuaded youself.
As for me:[i burrow your statement with a few corrections which i believe you will notice]
I believe that the Spirit is uncreated and exists with God the Father, and I believe Father and Son and Spirit have relationships one with the other, and I only worship one God and that is the true God, God is a Spirit and they that worship Him worship Him in spirit and in Truth.
The Scriptures do not teach us to worship any other, nor do they teach us to worship Christ other than in acknowledgement that He is the Lamb worthy to be slain….
Maggie on 27 Oct 2008 at 2:31 pm #
I am just starting to study more on the Trinity, as a child we are taught about God and Jesus and as an adult I though that this was two people and not one. I guess it is kind a hard to grasp because oin John 3:16 it says that God gave his only begotten Son, so how did he begot this Son if in fact this was himself. and when Christ was on the cross he was to have said why have thee forsaken me . which brings another point on if he was God then who forsake him?
jasondulle on 27 Oct 2008 at 4:35 pm #
Luke,
Thank you for the compliment.
I would suggest you read Daniel Segraves, as well as my own writings for a slightly different perspective from what you might read in Bernard, or others. And let me add that Oneness theology is not monolithic (I regret even using the word “official” in my post to you). There is considerable variability among Oneness adherents on various issues, including Christology. What we hold in common is that God is uni-personal, and that Jesus Christ is that one uni-personal God incarnate.
Yes, there is a concern among the “intelligencia” of the movement concerning the way Oneness theology is often understood by laymen, and pastors alike (most of whom are seriously lacking in theological education). But I think our situation is roughly parallel to your own. I have heard several Trinitarian scholars lament the disconnect between the academy and the pews when it comes to understanding the Trinity. My Trinitarian theology professor in seminary, James Sawyer, himself lamented how 99% of professing Trinitarians do not understand the Trinity—they tend to be either tritheists or modalists. And yet those same people would use the Trinitarian buzzwords of three persons and one essence.
I do not doubt that you have heard some of the things you say! I once heard a fellow Oneness believer tell me Jesus is not the Son of God (thinking that saying so was “Trinitarian”). But for all the goofiness I have heard in my life, I have never heard any Oneness believer say God was only Father at time t1, then only Son at time t2, and now only Holy Spirit.
As for tongues, I don’t doubt that many fail to make the distinction I have made. They reason that if tongues is the universal evidence of the Spirit, and you have to have the Spirit to be saved, then you have to speak in tongues to be saved. Their logic is practical, rather than…well…logical. The fact remains that tongues would not be the cause of salvation, but merely evidence of the salvation brought about by the Spirit’s infilling (the real cause).
You are right when you say there are not many people speaking about justification in Oneness ranks. But I have seen a big shift in the last 10 years. The most notable public figure (and scholar) is Daniel Segraves.
When it comes to baptism, we believe baptism is part of regeneration. We do not believe baptism is efficacious in itself (like Catholics do), but only through faith in the operation of God.
Yes, I am a bit of a maverick within our ranks! I would say I reflect the newer, emerging face of the Oneness movement. I have received little negative feedback on my doctrinal expositions from other Oneness adherents, particularly regarding theology proper, Christology, and justification—so while I am a maverick of sorts, I am seen as fully part of the Oneness tradition.
I don’t have any official stats to go off of, but anecdotally, I would say at least half of our ordained ministers have an A.A. or B.A. in theology (although prior to the last 10 years or so, most of the institutions from which they received these degrees would be better classified as ministerial training schools than theological studies programs). The rest simply read a series of doctrinal books required to be licensed. Historically speaking, Pentecostal movements have been quite anti-intellectual. They relied on “Spirit training” as you said. Things are beginning to change, however. For example, the UPCI opened its first graduate-level seminary about seven years ago. Education is being promoted a lot more these days, for which I am thankful.
I went to an Oneness college, as well as a Trinitarian seminary, so I got to hear the best of both sides. One thing I have found is that neither side really understands the other. Oneness adherents commonly accuse Trinitarians of believing in three gods, or denying the full deity of Christ. Trinitarians commonly accuse Oneness adherents of denying the deity of Christ, confessing Sabellianism, or worse. One of my goals is to bring clarity to the debate, so I do my best to honestly and accurately represent the best of Trinitarian thinking to my fellow Oneness adherents, as well as represent the best of Oneness thinking to Trinitarians. Even if we never come to agree, at least we’ll be clear on what it is we disagree about, and why. Burning straw-men won’t help either side.
RB on 31 Oct 2008 at 11:14 am #
I am just starting to study more on the Trinity, as a child we are taught about God and Jesus and as an adult I though that this was two people and not one. I guess it is kind a hard to grasp because oin John 3:16 it says that God gave his only begotten Son, so how did he begot this Son if in fact this was himself. and when Christ was on the cross he was to have said why have thee forsaken me . which brings another point on if he was God then who forsake him?
Well Maggie,
Its been almost a week and still they have not answered you and they most likely will not.
For, there are many things that the trinitarian doctrine can not answer by the Scriptures, but it makes claim that are “alluded” “assume” or “plausible” by way of the Scriptures.
Yet many a trinitarian will lay claim to and usurpt the Authority of the Scriptures by claiming and stating that you are not saved should you not follow their way of belief, which is that you “must” believe in the trinity to be saved. but the Scriptures never teach this – man does.
Rob Bowman on 31 Oct 2008 at 11:34 am #
Maggie,
Since you say that you are just beginning to study more on the Trinity, I can sympathize with your confusion. I struggled with the doctrine myself when I first began to study it seriously (that was many years ago for me now!).
The Trinity does not teach that Jesus is the Son of himself, or that Jesus abandoned himself on the cross. When Jesus or the New Testament writers speak of “God” as someone distinct from Jesus, they are referring specifically to God the Father. The NT usually—not always—uses the divine title “God” in reference to the Father. However, the NT also affirms that Jesus is himself “God” (John 1:1; 20:28; Titus 2:13; 2 Peter 1:1; and elsewhere), meaning, not that Jesus is God the Father, but that Jesus, as the Son, is himself the divine Creator and Sustainer of the universe, deserving of boundless trust, worship, honor, praise, and glory.
I invite you to work through my outline study on the biblical basis of the doctrine of the Trinity. It will help you understand why we believe in the Trinity. You can find it here:
http://www.irr.org/trinity-outline.html
Rob Bowman on 31 Oct 2008 at 11:40 am #
RB,
You obviously are familiar enough with the doctrine of the Trinity that you should have known that Maggie’s question has an answer from our point of view. If you didn’t know this, you should know it now after reading my response to her.
Your other criticisms are addressed in the series of posts I am doing on my blog:
http://www.religiousresearcher.org/blog/?s=Trinity
Next time, perhaps you will not conclude rashly from a four-day delay that someone has no answer.
By the way, up to now I have not bothered to respond to you further, because you never answered my question to you. We know that you are against the Trinity, but you have yet to tell us what you are for–that is, what religious belief you accept, and to what religious group you belong.
RB on 31 Oct 2008 at 9:54 pm #
Rob,
So then whats your answer to maggie?
Did Jesus[God] pray to himself?
Did Jesus[God] give himself in Mary by Birth?
You say trinity does not teach that Jesus is the son of Himself which is correct. As a matter of fact the trinity does not even attempt to clearly define Jesus as the son pre-existent it just makes the claim “God the Son” mostly based on Scriptures after the Ressurection, to be totally accurate the OT never has God claiming to have a “Son” at all yet we do find that “a son will be born, Isaiah 7:14 – a son ’shall’ be born.
Yet we read in Jn 3:16,17 that a “Son” is born, through Mary. Now we have a “Son”, the doctrine of the trinity seems to put the cart before the horse in stating that the “son is pre-existent”. Should this son existed prior to this then Jesus would have been born twice to be the ’son’ of the trinity, as brought forth by the trinity.
Did Jesus[God] die on the Cross?
Post #2 – i asked you a couple of questions, you never answered.
Post #13 – you ask me my view on the Father, Son, Spirit. I answered by my reply to Phil = Post #23
Post #15 – again another question to you, you never answered.
catch up…..
Jason on 31 Oct 2008 at 10:16 pm #
Trinity is a model, it is not therefore necessarily the best explanation, it is merely the best explanation that we have at present.
John did indeed place the origin of Jesus, the Word, in the beginning with God and went as far as to say that the word was God. We have here an early follower of Jesus (and a Jew) being willing to place Jesus alongside YHWH as the creator of all that is.
Jesus felt free to claim that he and his Father were one, to see him was to see the Father. In this he claimed to be the perfect representation of God’s authority on the Earth.
At Jesus’ baptism we see the Father speaking from heaven, Jesus coming out of the water, and the Spirit descending like a dove. This would at the very least indicate some differentiation between them.
The thing to differentiate is ontological and functional equality. That Jesus counted himself equal to the Father ontologically did not mean that he saw himself as functionally equal. I do what I see my Father doing. Without Him I can do nothing etc.
Although Rob doesn’t particularly like this illustration the Jews (in fact many ancient peoples) had the concept of a hypostasis. If you want to read about it try HERE. Philo himself proposed that the three visiting Abraham were God, His Wisdom, and His Royal Power.
People are saved through an acknowledgment of their moral failings, repentance and pledging their allegiance to Jesus. I do not think that a person needs a perfect understanding of Trinity in order to be saved.
Jason on 31 Oct 2008 at 10:28 pm #
Sorry about the second post.
Trinity is a model, it is not therefore necessarily the best explanation, it is merely the best explanation that we have at present.
John did indeed place the origin of Jesus, the Word, in the beginning with God and went as far as to say that the word was God. We have here an early follower of Jesus (and a Jew) being willing to place Jesus alongside YHWH as the creator of all that is.
Jesus felt free to claim that he and his Father were one, to see him was to see the Father. In this he claimed to be the perfect representation of God’s authority on the Earth.
At Jesus’ baptism we see the Father speaking from heaven, Jesus coming out of the water, and the Spirit descending like a dove. This would at the very least indicate some differentiation between them.
The thing to differentiate is ontological and functional equality. That Jesus counted himself equal to the Father ontologically did not mean that he saw himself as functionally equal. Before Abraham was, I am. I do what I see my Father doing. Without Him I can do nothing etc.
However Jesus himself affirmed Shema, Shema yisra’el adonai eloheynu adonai ehad, which is itself an affirmation of the unity of God. It is the tension between the affirmed unity of God, and the claims Jesus made that set himself alongside God (and through his resurrection vindicated his claims, after all anyone can “claim” to be God) that led to the formulation of the doctrine of Trinity.
Although Rob doesn’t particularly like this illustration the Jews (in fact many ancient peoples) had the concept of a hypostasis. If you want to read about it try HERE. Philo himself proposed that the three visiting Abraham were God, His Wisdom, and His Royal Power. Ascribing attributes of God to the person of Wisdom was seen in Jewish literature long before Jesus arrived on the scene.
People are saved through an acknowledgment of their moral failings, repentance and pledging their allegiance to Jesus. I do not think that a person needs a perfect understanding of Trinity in order to be saved.
Rob Bowman on 01 Nov 2008 at 1:43 am #
RB,
I *did* answer Maggie’s questions. Jesus did not pray to himself and he is not his own Son. You already know this. Your purpose is to harass, not to ask honest questions. Your post #2 is a good example of such harassment. I have an outline study on the biblical basis of the doctrine of the Trinity; instead of addressing the evidence I have already presented, you simply berate me for daring to hold the view I do.
You have not told us what you believe about Jesus Christ. And you have not yet answered my question as to your religious affiliation. Are you a Lone Ranger Christian, anonymously posting online challenges to other people’s faiths but having no faith in common with a community of believers? Assuming you’re right, where should we go?
If I don’t respond to you any further, which is entirely possible at this point, it is because I deem your comments to be no more constructive than what you have already posted up to this point.
RB on 01 Nov 2008 at 6:52 am #
I believe that the Spirit is uncreated and exists with God the Father, and I believe Father and Son and Spirit have relationships one with the other, and I only worship one God and that is the true God, God is a Spirit and they that worship Him worship Him in spirit and in Truth.
The Scriptures do not teach us to worship any other, nor do they teach us to worship Christ other than in acknowledgement that He is the Lamb worthy to be slain….[from post #23 - you are not paying attention]
***********
Jn 1:1, does not say that ‘Jesus’ was with God, it states the Word. It also states the Word was God. Nothing in this verse indicates that ‘Jesus’ was preexistent nor that He was alive. You seem to read into the verse what is not there, ‘Jesus’ is not mention till later and that the “Word became Flesh” not “Jesus became flesh”….
Jn20:28, is after the Resurrection not before. So yes Thomas was correct is stating that ‘Jesus’ was the God that He worshipped for Now he has seen the Full Glory of God “exhibited’ through that of Christ.
Titus 2:13, yes this verse speaks of TWO, that of the GLORY of God as well as mentioning that Jesus Christ is the Savior- for it was Jesus that Died on the Cross and thus He is the Savior of the World.
2 Peter1:1, clearly states that Peter was an Apostle of Christ by the Righteousness of God “AND” our Savior, again this is speaking to the past tense of the Resurrection.
The Apostles were sent out just as Christ was sent out, Jn 17:18
Why do trinitarians take 1st/2nd Scriptures written to 1st/2nd Christians and think that they understand and know exactly what the writters were meaning.? Were you there?
Jason on 01 Nov 2008 at 8:28 am #
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. All things were made by him; and without him was not any thing made that was made. In him was life; and the life was the light of men.
And the light shineth in darkness; and the darkness comprehended it not. There was a man sent from God, whose name was John. The same came for a witness, to bear witness of the Light, that all men through him might believe. He was not that Light, but was sent to bear witness of that Light. That was the true Light, which lighteth every man that cometh into the world. He was in the world, and the world was made by him, and the world knew him not. He came unto his own, and his own received him not. But as many as received him, to them gave he power to become the sons of God, even to them that believe on his name: Which were born, not of blood, nor of the will of the flesh, nor of the will of man, but of God. And 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.
Now you’re just being precious. Was Jesus called Jesus prior to being named by Mary and Joseph? Of course not. Did John mean Jesus? Well he seemed to be John’s primary subject. The Son needed no name while with his Father. Also, since there were no “verse distinctions” in the original text it’s a very poor thing to argue from. Introduce a subject, the Logos of God, introduce another, John the Baptist, tie them together while distinguishing between them. It’s a good literary technique.
Jesus answered them, I told you, and ye believed not: the works that I do in my Father’s name, they bear witness of me. But ye believe not, because ye are not of my sheep, as I said unto you. My sheep hear my voice, and I know them, and they follow me: And I give unto them eternal life; and they shall never perish, neither shall any man pluck them out of my hand. My Father, which gave them me, is greater than all; and no man is able to pluck them out of my Father’s hand. I and my Father are one. Then the Jews took up stones again to stone him. Jesus answered them, Many good works have I shewed you from my Father; for which of those works do ye stone me? The Jews answered him, saying, For a good work we stone thee not; but for blasphemy; and because that thou, being a man, makest thyself God.
That’s John 10:25-33, an event that occurred long before Jesus was crucified. He made no bones about his claims, and his listeners certainly didn’t seem to believe he was claiming anything other than equality with YHWH.
Your father Abraham rejoiced to see my day: and he saw it, and was glad. Then said the Jews unto him, Thou art not yet fifty years old, and hast thou seen Abraham? Jesus said unto them, Verily, verily, I say unto you, Before Abraham was, I am. Then took they up stones to cast at him: but Jesus hid himself.
John 8:56-59, again pre-crucifixion. Again the standard response to blasphemy, that is the desire to stone him. Jesus was clearly understood to be claiming divine status.
As I said before the trinitarian model was constructed to explain the tension between the appearance of three individuals who could be titled God within Jewish monotheism. It isn’t necessarily the best model, but if you don’t like it you have to go and construct a model that explains all the available evidence, not just a few cherry-picked verses.
RB on 01 Nov 2008 at 6:40 pm #
Jason,
you posted alot, but i see nothing that gives clear presentation in the Scriptures that the ’son’ preexisted. Yet when you do you will also need to present his mother as being pre-existent as well.
So looking forward to reading those OT Scriptures where God state that He has a ‘Son’ before the ‘Son’ is born……Isaiah 7:14
michael kennedy on 18 Jan 2009 at 1:43 am #
I’ve really enjoyed your posts. I’m not nearly as qualified to comment but please allow my post. And comment, i’d like to learn more.
John 1 is about the logos, Is the logos the expression of God’s person or is it the word or plan of God ?
In the OT didn’t God reveal himself as the Angel of The Lord,
was this the father or possibly the logos? If the logos is the expression of God in whichever manisfestation, does this make a different person? We all agree that Jesus is the Logos and that he is God in flesh, and that he preexisted. The point of contention then was he the son before he was born of Mary? and in his preexistence was he a separate person than father and holy spirit.
If we are created in God’s image is it possible that God also has body soul and spirit, son father Holy spirit?
Can we communicate between our body soul and spirit?
david seemed to think so.
jbarg on 06 Mar 2009 at 11:14 pm #
The Word ” Trinity” do not have a Biblical Orgin and Bible Theologians know what I mean by Orgin.
Apostolic is not in the Bible but its the adjectival form of the noun Apostle so it has a Biblical Orgin.
To say, if a person don’t beleive in ” Trinity” they are not a Christian is a Lie and not the Truth . To say, if a person don’t beleive in what the bible say, Father , Son and Holy Ghost maybe they are not Christians.
Using extrabiblical terms is what causes so much confusion and disunity like God the Son, Eternal Son , second person in the God head , Third Person , co-eternal etc. etc. etc.
Also we need to watch how we use the Word ” Person ” etc.
Please go to this site and read concerning the Word ” person ”
http://danielsegraves.blogspot.com/
Maybe they have the Math or equation wrong
is it possible instead of 1+1+1= 3
maybe its 1x 1x 1=1
God Bless you in the Lord and Savior Jesus Christ
Kara Kittle on 19 Mar 2009 at 4:55 pm #
Can I chime in here? I happen to be Pentecostal and have relatives on both sides of this coin so I have heard all the debates.
Oneness used to be called Jesus Only because they believe Jesus is the Father, Son and Holy Ghost. He is just one, and manifests Himself in three different ways depending on the situation or dispensation. They hold to more of a legalistic view, i.e. Women must wear their hair long and women can’t speak as pastors. But they are Pentecostal because they practice it.
Trinitarians believe in the fullness of the Godhead, three distinct individuals with different functions, but unified in Spirit and agreement. The Trinity is expressed in some churches as God the Father, God the Son and God the Holy Ghost, but they are indeed personages. They are more relaxed, women can wear short hair and pants and some accept women preachers and some accept women pastors.
Now to dissuade any argument over women pastors….there are situations that arise that women may be called upon to fill the office of pastor, but that should not be a debate here.
Oneness baptize in Jesus Name.
Trinitarians baptize in Name of the Father, Son and Holy Ghost.
Kara Kittle on 19 Mar 2009 at 4:58 pm #
Jbarg,
The Bible does not say the phrase “absolute truth” but we accept that is it anyway.
RB on 20 Mar 2009 at 11:12 am #
Kara and Jbarg,
There is no unity in God the Father and God the Son. For if there were, then God the Father and God the Son would have the same “will”, which when we read the Scriptures correctly they do not. Especially when we consider the trial of obedience in the Garden, Christ clearly exhibits a conflict of wills concenring the “Father” and the “Son”, yet we will consistently say that “Jesus is God”, should this statement have any real value then the Scirptures would give no conflicts concerning the clarity of the statement, nor would we find any that would put it in conflict of Nature.
But we do find conflict of mans decree and that of the Scriptures. If God is the Son and God is the Father then God is Both, that would assure us that the Will of God be exhibited by the Father and this Will would also be the same as the Son – but we can find in the Scriptures, especially in the Garden, that this is not so………
So if the Will of the Son WAS NOT the same as the Father, how is it the we will still contend that ‘Jesus is God’ – ?
Jason C on 20 Mar 2009 at 1:47 pm #
You do get things the wrong way around.
The Son is God and the Father is God. Not vice versa.
In trinitarian thought the essential nature of the Son and the Father is God. They are different people though.
A clear statement of the pre-existence of the Word, and the identification of the Word with Jesus.
Also in JP Holding’s discussion of the hypostatic existence of Jesus here he draws from Jewish philosophy the belief that God’s Wisdom (Jesus) and his Royal Power (the Spirit) are eternal attributes of the Father.
jbarg on 20 Mar 2009 at 8:45 pm #
Question
1 Timothy 3:16
When God was manifest in the flesh are we to interpret that
as the Second Person in the Trinity came in the Flesh?
or the Father who is GOD manifest in flesh and because
of the Flesh he is called the Son of God ?
The bible never uses God the Son
jbarg on 20 Mar 2009 at 9:20 pm #
Praise God in the Lord and Savior Jesus Christ
I know when I worship before the Throne Its only going to be One on it.
How many will you see ?
If One what’s His name ?
If Three what are their names ?
I beleive the One whose image I’m made in because I’m only One Person.
Kara Kittle on 21 Mar 2009 at 7:49 am #
Jbarg.
“Berfore Abraham was, I am” Abraham rejoiced to see His day. Who’s day? The Day of Jehovah?
Psalmist “The Lord said unto my Lord, sit thou on my right hand until I make Thy enemies Thy footstool”
There was a loud voice out of heaven “This is my begotten Son, hear ye Him.”
“To which of any angel did he say at any time, thou are my son, today I have begotten thee.”
You must have missed my post that I have aunts and uncles and cousins who are Oneness so I know the debates already.
jbarg on 21 Mar 2009 at 10:47 am #
So we Know there is a differance between begotten and eternal
right ?
and was the Psalmist letting us know that one God was talking
to the other God?
or is he refering to God talking to a Human ?
You see I don’t beleive God became a Man, he Manifest in a Man
Jesus Christ deity is beyond His Human existence
his Pre-existence is WORD not SON
now if you are trying to explain things to me like, I was created before I was born , now these are things I just really don’t totally understand so maybe if you are talking of the Son of God created
before he was Born then ?
jbarg on 21 Mar 2009 at 11:58 am #
Praise the Lord Jesus
I was raised Baptist, most of my family are. My brother who was a baptist Reverend went to moody bible institute etc. was witnessed
to , he Repented was baptised in Jesus name and filled with the Holy Ghost with the sign of Speaking in tongues and then a real life change. Now, before I had ever heard of Oneness Pentecostal I knew everthing was about Jesus Christ . My brother witnessed to me , I fought him tooth and nail but in my Heart I knew the glorifing
of Jesus Christ was the Truth and by the Grace of God through Faith I obeyed it. There are people in my family that understood the Truth went out Got baptised in Jesus name and filled with Holy Ghost with evidence of speaking in tongues and they contiue to go to Baptist churches etc. I’m a Oneness Pentecostal and I beleive in eternal security,predestination etc. etc.
I don’t get into it with people about who’s going to Hell because thats in God hands but I tell people just obey it, its the Word of God . we walk by Faith not by Sight
RB on 21 Mar 2009 at 1:16 pm #
Jbarg and Kara,
you both avoided my question and especially of what the Scriptures are clear in speaking and teaching concerning the mis-conception that “Jesus is God”
So I will ask again and pray that you can answer the question and not post subversives to allude to answering.
So, if you believe ‘Jesus is God’ how is it that he DEFINITELY DID NOT have the same will as God? Beit that should He truely have BEEN GOD, there would be no struggle in the area of the Will and the mission of Christ.
Jesus continually spoke of “doing the will of the Father” and that He was in fact doing so, yet we find in the Scriptures that there is recorded for us that there was a moment that He struggled with “”doing the will of the Father”" – but should Jesus have BEEN GOD as you ascribe to believe – then there would be NO DIFFERENCE of Will’s between Jesus AND Father – for they are the same : God.
So explain how you can say that Jesus is God when the Scriptures “reveal” that this cannot be.
jbarg on 21 Mar 2009 at 1:27 pm #
RB
I’m going to try but Jesus Christ being Man and God is to be beleived and maybe not explained.
I wil try One Scripture Revelation 22: 16
He is the root and offspring of David (king)
His God and his son or maybe we say . great,great,great etc
grand son
God bless in His revelation, Jesus Christ
RB on 21 Mar 2009 at 1:52 pm #
Jbarg,
I have no problems w/ Rev passage.
But—when we go around saying things that we cannot explain but blindedly believe, then as Chrsit stated we are the blind leading the blind and are no better than those of His time and era. Yet, for years we have an assumption based on mans delimna and have clung to this for century’s and still are “the blind leading the blind”.
Also, how can we claim that we are good stewards of the Glorious Word of God by making assumptional claims, that we can neither prove by Scripture nor show adequate representation by thru and with the Scriptures.
ergo: should Jesus be truely God in the flesh, then there would be NO difference in wills for they ARE the same, for then that would clearly make Jesus God, but clearly the Scriptures speak differently….nor did Paul at anytime make any claims the Jesus was or is God, yet he difinitely understood that Jesus was/is the Word become flesh, this same Word that indwells every true believer and this same Word that is gives us the same Power as that of Christ and the Apostles…..
R.
Kara Kittle on 21 Mar 2009 at 3:09 pm #
RB,
I did not see your question so I will read it now. For us to believe that Jesus is the singleness or Oness, then how does it answer to the right hand of the Father? One of the interpretations I have heard is this, Jesus descending on the right hand of power. Explain what that means.
When we accept Jesus as the Son, it is by His own admission, and by witness of the disciples. But most Oneness I know do not accept the Four Gospels and most of Revelation anyway so they don’t teach those scriptures. My uncle who is a preacher and a missionary actually has said that Jesus was just throwing his voice that day to convince people his voice was coming from heaven. I heard a woman one time say the Gospels were lies in the first place. So you can see where the division is.
Isaiah puts it plainly…”unto us a child is born, unto us a Son is given, and He shall be called Wonderful, Counselor, The Mighty God, the Everlasting Father, the Prince of Peace and the government shall be upon His shoulders and of His kingdom there shall be no end.”
Then all of the prophecies in the OT were fulfilled in Jesus, not only as the Seed promised to Adam and Eve (which by the way the Oneness also believe in Satan Seed doctrine that Eve had sexual union with Satan and had a baby). Of course there is no name for this child. But you can see what happens when you remove the Gospels.
Jesus is the Begotten Son of God because God says He is. And in heaven He is the High Priest and the lamb who was slain. So now it all comes down to this, is the Holy Ghost a person, or a power?
Yes they are unified in will. Jesus took on mortal flesh and learned obedience.
jbarg on 21 Mar 2009 at 5:26 pm #
RB
If I’m not mistaken no Apostle,Prophet the writers of the Bible Inspired by God’s Influence , tryed to explain how Jesus was a Man and God
Scriptures like 1 Timothy 3:16 and Revelations and the way he spoke in the Gospels let us Know he was Both Human and God
and His Deity did not over take his Humanity . Jesus was a real human being with a Human will (without a sin nature) and also he was God
you know the Human will has the ability to disobey God
Adam and Eve (before they ate the fruit)
Acts 20:28 God Purchased the Church with His Own Blood
what Blood ?when he Manifest in a Human and Shedded Blood
jbarg on 21 Mar 2009 at 5:55 pm #
Oh Yea I’m Oneness Pentecostal and I don’t beleive in a serpent or Satan nor angels that had sex with women
RB on 21 Mar 2009 at 7:51 pm #
Jbarg,
hey lets work backwards from your post:
fisrt, you apparently mis-quoted Acts 20.28, (which is common amongst triny’s) it does not say “God obtained the church by HIS blood” -but correctly stated- “…God that he obtained with the blood of his own Son.” please re-read it in its entirety to obtain the full meaning of the verse not what you want it to say -verses- what it correcly states.
Yes, i am aware of the human will to disobey God, therefore by your own words Christ clearly identifies that He had the Human Will and NOT that of God, for should he have had the “WIll of GOD”, thus making Him God, then there would be no indication by Scripture that there was a conflict – no brainer would you not agree(?)
I do not believe that there are any verses that clearly give us evidence that Jesus is God, yet there are many that teach us that He was not. As to stating that there are some that speak of God being man, again i fail to find any. Yet, we have the ability to assume a proclamation of the same by twisting them, as you demonstrated by not fully using the quote of the text, to mean what we as man want and not what God intended.
Henceforth, should this be a true statement “…His Deity did not over take his Humanity…” by you, then there would be no possible means whereby Jesus, as being God manifest, could demonstrate nor acknowledge, that there was/is a conflict of wills, for there would be no ‘human will’ to speak of. But we clearly define that Jesus’ will was NOT the same as God’s will, thus again leading us to understand that there was humanity in the sense that there was the ability to disobey, yet He did not, but to give us understanding in the Scriptures that there is a conflict of the will’s leads us to only come to the “sound doctrine[teaching]” Titus 2.1, that Jesus was NOT God.
As to your opening, should it be clear that the Prophets, Apostles, and men of God who were INSPIRED by the Spirit of God, make no mention nor attempt to assimilate a God/Man, where do we get the Authority to conclude such a preponderance of knowledge to circumvent the Scriptures?
**********
Kara,
I have never heard of “Jesus descending on the right hand of power” so i cannot answer.
“Jesus is the Begotten Son of God because God says He is. And in heaven He is the High Priest and the lamb who was slain. So now it all comes down to this, is the Holy Ghost a person, or a power?
Yes they are unified in will. Jesus took on mortal flesh and learned obedience.”
Well, we would need to clearly define “person” in order to establish a “person”; yet we do know that the Spirit is the Agent, or power or force, whereby God gives direction and instruction to His Children.
We are also sealed until the day of Redeemption by the same Spirit as well as the Spirit groaning and interceeding foe us at the Throne. The same being said of Christ, being our High Priest and Miadiator on our behalf, before the Throne.
Thus, Paul clearly states and gives us understanding that by these things we can approach the Throne with boldness and assurance.
*******
R.
jbarg on 21 Mar 2009 at 9:54 pm #
Please Don’t get me Wrong RB
I’m talking about Jesus Christ before his Death,burial and resurrection. even though his Deity did not overshadow his
humanity , He still revealed that he was God so Jesus Christ is God
we Know Jesus Christ is a when , where , who , place , person
Son of God , Lamb ,High Priest , Everlasting Father, the Spirit,The Lord etc. etc. etc.,
oh Yes he is the One for he is beyond his Humanity
God bless You in the name of Jesus Christ
RB on 21 Mar 2009 at 10:50 pm #
Well Jbarg,
So am I, and you have shown nothing to show that Jesus is God other than simple words of man and Nothing by way of Scriptures.
Yet, I have clearly provided you a major discrepency in a doctrine that speaks against the Scriptures. Yet, you can adhere to a doctrine and teaching that speaks against Scripture, but I will stay with the Scriptures.
You can clearly deny the Scriptures, you can clearly deny what the Spirit is trying to reveal to you, but you cannot deny that the Scriptures are correct and man a liar.
R.
RB on 21 Mar 2009 at 11:22 pm #
Jbarg,
heres a simple question for you to consider:
Now, you believe that Jesus is God, in Matthew 26 passage concerning the Garden, when Jesus prayed three times concerning “doing the will of the Father[God]” :
Q-Should Jesus be God in the Flesh, are we to understand from this passage that God Himself struggles with Obedience?
If so, then are we to also understand that God struggles everyday and every moment to do what is right?
Should your answer be ‘NO’ then please explain how Jesus is God and struggled with Obedience……Did God struggle with Himself?
R.
jbarg on 22 Mar 2009 at 5:36 am #
RB
God don’t struggle with nothing.
God or the Deity of Jesus didn’t struggle with the Will of humanity,
the humanity struggled with the Will of God or Deity and it submitted
You and me know that Jesus Christ was a Unique individual. nobody like Jesus.
we get born of the Spirit or God ,filled with etc. and our wills struggle with the will of the Spirit or God etc.
Jesus Christ was the Child of the Holy Ghost or God, He was God incarnated, ok, lets not use incarnated . The Holy Ghost overshadowed mary and had what the Bible Called a Holy Thing also Immanuel ( God with us )now remember he came forth without the Help of a man you know, like my mother and father Got together and I came forth
Now we know Adam came from the Ground and Eve from his side,
God breathe in Adam ,the Breath of Life ( now that breath continue to his children down to us,right . so the breath of Life and The Spirit of God being in you is diifferent if not then we would not have to Get filled with the Spirit etc.)
There is a difference between Adam and Jesus and it has to do with ,how God was in Adam and How he was in Jesus for Adam could disobey God and did but because of Jesus being God manifested, the Will of God could not and was not denied. That’s why Jesus always did his Father’s Will and the whole struggle was concerning Flesh and Spirit ( we know that flesh or carnal don’t always mean sinful just Human or natural .right )
We are predestined to be conform to image of God’s Son Christ Jesus and in the consumation of all things it will be perfect ,for God will be all in all
Now the Sin nature is passed down by The Male or I hope this is not too offensive through the sperm but Jesus was not brought forth like that he was Born of God and we also become his brethern by being Born again or Born of God But remember Jesus Christ Born of God is totally different from us . His total existance is, He is the Image of God and He is God manifested in Flesh or Humanity . now if this is all in a language you can’t understand I’m sorry. Pray and ask God to open your understanding to His Word through the Bible.
oh Yea a person can go to Bible Seminary get PHDs and if they don’t have geniune Faith in God and Love God and they lead or teach people thats the blind leading the blind
But I would rather listen to a Child that have true geniune Faith in God and Love God for that would be a person that can SEE.
Jesus Christ is the God/Man and Its a mystery I don’t beleive it can be totally explained its illogical and He must be Beleived not necessarily explained
God bless You in the name of the Lord and Savior Jesus Christ
RB on 22 Mar 2009 at 12:27 pm #
jbarg,
see already you are contradicting yourself:
“God don’t struggle with nothing.
God or the Deity of Jesus didn’t struggle with the Will of humanity,
the humanity struggled with the Will of God or Deity and it submitted”
and in less that two sentences no doubt.
So since you clearly have a loose understanding, i see no reason to further this conversation. Mindless to say that the use of Scriptural referrals by you is lacking as well.
Either Jesus is God and the Scriptures are incorrect in regards to the Matthew Passage, and there was no struggle of the Wills and the interpreters have messed up the translations -
-OR-
Jesus was not God and there was a struggle of the Wills and the Scriptures ARE correct. This would mean that man is wrong and for century’s we have believed a lie concocked by those who were seemingly lacking as well.
Yet, we must referr back to the Scriptures for evidence of a claim by man that Jesus was the God/Man, but the Scriptures are correct in that there was a struggle of Wills for disobedience/obedience.
Thus again we can conclude that Jesus was NOT God, since the Scriptures are clear that He had a different will than that of God the Father,
But i am teachable should you be able to provide teachable material and Scriptural support for your position as to a creditable and meritorius explaination as to how Jesus -being God by your understanding- sturggled to do the Will of God—are you still impling that God struggled with Himself–?
R.
jbarg on 22 Mar 2009 at 4:59 pm #
RB
I don’t know for sure but you sound like a unitarian or Jehovah Witness etc.
I beleive in One God Who is Father revealed in Son in redemption
and Holy Ghost in Inspiration and regeneration three operations or Modes etc
but not three separate Persons and each one is God. co-eternal etc. etc. “Trinity” ( I can’t get with God is Three people )
Matthew 11:27 All things are delivered unto me of my Father: and no man knoweth the Son, but the Father; neither knoweth any man the Father, save the Son, and he to whomsoever the Son will reveal him.
All Glory and Worship to the Lord and Savior Jesus Christ
RB on 22 Mar 2009 at 7:47 pm #
i am neither, yet should God be Jehovah and i am His witness, then in a brief since i would qualify, but I am a Christian.
And you have still avoided the question of Jesus being God and having a different will than that of God.
Even the verse you use credits the Truth that Jesus was not God, nor the Father. Also it qualifies what i have been saying from the start of this conversion: that since the will of the Father is not the will of the Son, thus being the Son could not be God, who is the Father.
For if God is the Father, and God is the Son, then the Son AND the Father would have the same will – since both ARE God. But clearly your verse of referral and the one i stated previousely prove otherwise.
So, now it comes down to this – are we going to believe mans lies – or – the Scriptures-?
R.
jbarg on 22 Mar 2009 at 8:11 pm #
RB
Romans 9:5
Whose are the fathers, and of whom as concerning the flesh Christ came, who is over all, God blessed for ever. Amen.
RB on 22 Mar 2009 at 9:13 pm #
More than all of the distinctions outlined in verse four, the Jews were the people through whom God’s Messiah was brought into the world. The other aspects were conceptual in nature, but the Messiah became the most tangible evidence of God’s blessing on Israel. Messiah was the historical fulfillment of all that was expressed in the Old Testament Scriptures.
The ancestry of Jesus Christ, God’s Messiah, was recorded in Matthew chapter one, beginning with Abraham, Isaac, and Jacob, and continuing through the kingly line of David. Luke 3:23-38 records the ancestors of Jesus the Messiah through Mary his mother. This also includes Abraham, Isaac, Jacob, and David. Abraham was the father of the nation Israel through whom God would provide salvation for all the peoples of the world. “Through you every family on earth will be blessed” (Genesis 12:3).
Despite all of these God-given resources and the historical fulfillment in the appearance of God’s Messiah, the Jewish people continued in obstinate rejection of all that God had promised them. Born in the richness of this Jewish heritage, Paul was brokenhearted over his nation’s apathy.
To place a period, either after the words “concerning the flesh Christ came,” rendering the next clause as a doxology to the Father — “God who is over all be blessed for ever”; or after the word “all” — thus, “Christ came, who is over all: God be blessed.”, &c. [ERASMUS, LOCKE, FRITZSCHE, MEYER, JOWETT, &c.]. But it is fatal to this view, as even Socinus admits, that in other Scripture doxologies the word “Blessed” precedes the name of God on whom the blessing is invoked (thus: “Blessed be God,” Ps 68:35; “Blessed be the Lord God, the God of Israel,” Ps 72:18). Besides, any such doxology here would be “unmeaning and frigid in the extreme”; the sad subject on which he was entering suggesting anything but a doxology, even in connection with Christ [...]
Having expressed how he reached the summit of God’s grace in the previous chapter, Paul looked into the valley below and saw his fellow Israelites living in the futility of seeking God’s approval through the law. He was genuinely grieved that his people, with their rich heritage in the Lord’s covenant with Abraham, had rejected the good news of salvation through Jesus their Messiah. God’s promises did not fail, but His people lost their way through their unbelief. “He went to his own people, and his own people didn’t accept him” (John 1:11).
After expressing the security that he had experienced in Christ, and after his passionate discourse in chapter eight ending with his affirmation that “nothing can ever separate us from God’s love which Christ Jesus our Lord shows us,” Paul found it terribly difficult to understand why his own people could not see the truth of Christ’s love. His grief was so intense that he articulated his wish that he could be condemned so that they could be saved. What kind of love would motivate Paul to such extreme measures? It is only by the love of Christ flourishing in his heart through the indwelling Spirit that he could dare to speak such unspeakable desires.
Such love makes us wonder about the level of our own love for humanity. Would we dare to make such an appeal to God if those around us did not believe in Christ—our family members, our coworkers, church members, and others who cross our path? Unfortunately, many of us are fearful even to let others know that we belong to Christ, let alone make such a passionate appeal for their salvation.
Let us appeal to God in the name of Jesus Christ to give us the spirit of boldness and joy in the salvation that has been so graciously bestowed on us. Let us ask Him to make us fearless witnesses to all those we meet.
ων οι πατερες και εξ ων ο χριστος το κατα σαρκα ο ων επι παντων θεος ευλογητος εις τους αιωνας αμην
Romans 9:5
Kara Kittle on 22 Mar 2009 at 10:16 pm #
Jbarg,
You might be Oneness, but my aunts and uncles were when it was called Jesus Only. I think I know something about it. Yes, the serpent seed doctrine is taught in Jesus Only Churches and if you ask my uncle now he will tell you that.
I like the assumption that because some of us don’t go to a particular church that we never had any interaction with anyone else. You should have been there the day my grandmother and her sister argued over how long their hair should be.
By the way, they were followers of William Branham when he preached in Kentucky, and get this, they handled snakes, drank coal oil and put their hands in fire. And yet they did it in some kind of faith. They were good Jesus loving people and talked about the Lord all the time when you saw them. When you want to see real Jesus Only snake handlers, come with me and we will ask my cousins to get their copperheads out.
My great-grandmother had abdominal cancer and got up in church and danced in the spirit for over an hour. She said she felt 16 again. She lived in the mountains of Breathitt County Kentucky 15 miles from Jackson, but would walk across the mountain to sell eggs in town. This woman loved the Lord and loved people and was kind to everyone. Should I then fault her for being Jesus Only? No, because she never faulted my family for not being.
RB on 23 Mar 2009 at 7:24 am #
jbarg,
Just so we understand each other, i do not believe that Paul would contradict himself by us interpreting Ro 9.5 to mean that Paul was/is saying Jesus is God.
For if we do this then we[man] put the Scriptures in confilct,
But I would have you know, that the head of every man is Christ; and the head of the woman [is] the man; and the head of Christ [is] God. 1 Cor 11.3
Should the head of Christ be God, then Christ can not be God.
….have a grand day..
R.
Greg. on 22 Apr 2009 at 3:15 pm #
Hi All,
I have believed in Jesus as Lord for eighteen years but recently have been very troubled by the doctrine of the trinity. My troubles come from the reading of scripture itself. To be succinct I am scared to not believe it and scared if I do I am believing a false doctrine.
I am not a scolar per se and have limited education. One of the things that plays on my mind is that so many believe the trinity doctrine without question that to question it must be wrong. Greater minds than I understand it and yet! I cannot but question it. Believe me when I say that it pains me to think about it. some of my friends that I discuss it with I am now sure question my salvation and at best believe I am becoming a heretic.
Here is where it began for me: it was reading verses that showed people as asking God to do this and that by HIS Holy spirit and also God saying By MY spirit.
Exodus 31:3 And I have filled him with the spirit of God. There are many such verses, you know, By My Spirit.
Now the questions that arise in my mind formulate thus, like: If I refer to something as MY then it belongs to me, my jacket , my car, my eyes etc. This makes methink that the Holy spirit is the spirit of the Father.
As my friends would say: so are you saying there’s only two the??!!! I ask them… then is the word GOD a collective term then.
Also the father is refered as the creator of us all, but so is Jesus reffered to as the creator. So who created then. Also acts swithces between “The spirit says ” and ” The Lord says”.
Also If God is spirit and the holy spirit is spirit and the Lord is the spirit then how many spirits are there???? AAARRRGGGGGHHHHH
What the scriptures seem to be saying to me is that the spirit is the spirit of God the Father. Because if the spirit overshadowed Mary and she conceived of Jesus and God is his Father then the spirit that overshadowed Mary must be the spirit of God the Father, NO?
And in acts 4:27-30 who is being addressed here. And why is Jesus addressed as ” Your Holy Servant”. If when they say ” Lord you are God who made heaven and earth and the sea and all that is in them, who are they addressing, Jesus or the Father??
And if it’s the Lord Jesus then was Jesus only his earthly title. Why didn’t they say ” Lord Jesus you are God who made heaven and earth and the sea and all that is in them”???
So here is what I finally began to think. God the Father, created the heavens and earth by speaking them into existence through his words. He then had a son begotten of him, NOT the father becoming the son but Having A son who would thus be the son of God and therefore God also through and he had him by sending his OWN spirit to overshadow Mary.
Now the problems begin when the word says” Let US make man in our own image, plural.
Final and last question. What is Tritheism?? it seems to be wrong by what people are saying. But if Jesus preexisted and the Father was there and the Holy spirit was there also and all were separate and all are persons, individuals, then whats wrong with tritheism. Ok, granted , they are not three Gods but still three separate persons all shatring the same title, NO?
Please help me out here. Very last thing. I know that Jesus said that no one has seen the father except the son, therefore he must have been with God the Father. But to me a son has to at some point be issued forth from the loins of a Father. I cannot conceive of the concept of a son in any other way. HELP!!
Greg
Kara Kittle on 22 Apr 2009 at 5:16 pm #
Greg,
Why do you believe someone has a greater mind than you? If you are seeking God and love Him with all your heart, soul, mind and body then don’t ever think others are better than you or you are less than anyone else.
The Trinity is ok to believe. Jesus makes references to the Father, the Son and the Holy Ghost. He never says He is greater than God, rather than He is equal to God.
Please don’t let some people in these blogs make you feel less intelligent because you are not. They themselves have built up their own intellect and by doing so have made themselves wise in their own eyes.
But the very last thing you said, you must realize God is a spirit, God overshadowed Mary. He never had relations with her after the flesh. Jesus is the manifest Word of God. He is the son, but you forgot His mother was human. You have looked at Jesus in a merely physical way.
Let’s ask this? How do a man and a woman who marry become one flesh? Does this one flesh bring forth children? No because some people who are not married have children, some people have relations and never have children and some people have children through implantation.
God overshadowed Mary. That was a powerful moment, but God knew what to do. It could not be physical because that would have violated His own laws and character. Mary had to consent. God is not a rapist and there was no lust involved. Lust is a work of the flesh.
Overshadows…that is the key.
Greg. on 22 Apr 2009 at 6:39 pm #
Hi Kara,
My goodness your answer was quick! I saw the lsat time anyone was on here was a month ago! Thank you for your gracious response.
Kara, yes I do understand that God overshadowed Mary not after the flesh. Thats not where I am stuck. It’s where I try and imagine Jesus in heaven from eternity. I cannot get past the understanding that every son has a beginning. and how people can just dismiss this is beyond me.
The issue of Jesus being the manifest word of God is difficult to understand because trinitarianism says he always existed. Then was he the son in heaven? Did he have a spirit Body or some kind of body? I know you cant really answer that Kara.
I know there is a verse that says : 1 Corinthians 10:4
and drank the same spiritual drink; for they drank from the spiritual rock that accompanied them, and that rock was Christ.
Whatever that means. but it speaks of Jesus Pre-existance. But if Jesus existed before he was on the earth then was it the Father who somehow changed him and brought him to earth and put him in the body of Mary. I’m laughing a little here to myself but in seriousness. Do you see how complicated it gets.
And the verse that gets to me is from 1 John 4:2 By this you know the spirit of God: Every spirit thatr confesses that Jesus christ has come in the flesh is of God.
Does that mean that if I believe that Jesus is the son of God with a devine nature ( not just an anointed man like the J.Ws) but dont believe that he always existed but had a beginning, that I am of the spirit of antichrist?
The strange thing is that trintarianism states that tritheism is heretical but yet they are all of the same substance yet separate, as if they truly know what that means I am beggining to think.
I have asked a mature Christian in my church about the whole overshadowing thing and that if God is the father of Jesus then it had to be his spirit therefore the Father and the Spirit are the same person? but he couldn’t answer me. the question frightened him. he said he knew what I meant but he didn’t want to commit himself. It seems to me that people accept the doctrine of the trinity without questioning it out of fear and talk as if they understand it but they don’t.
It’s funny but people are able to say what it doesn’t meaqn but they cant really say what it does. they cant answer questions like for instance who spoke at the burning bush the Father or the Son: Who spoke in the verse from exodus 31;3 and I have filled him with the spirit of God, The Father or the Son? Who spoke in Jeremiah 9; 24 let he who boasts boast that he knbows and understands me that I am the Lord exercising lovingkindness judgement and righteousness in the earth for in these I delight says the Lord: again , the Father or the Son?
Why is it that apart from Genesis God always speaks in the singular, as in the verse above and indeed throughout the whole old testament. It never says We the lords or We Delight in this or We will do this or that.
Who do I pray to and worship. People say worship the father through Jesus. Whatever does THROUGH Jesus mean.
Anyway Kara, enough for now. I think you are getting the picture of as melted head. I cannot even worship anymore because half the time I feel God is angry at me because I don’t understand or doubt even! the Trinity in the classical sense.
your servant Greg.
Dr. G. on 22 Apr 2009 at 6:52 pm #
RE: THE HOLY SPIRIT
But what is faith in the Holy Spirit? Who or what is that? Looks a lot like a variable. When I spoke to my Catholic friends about it as important, they said … “Who? That dove?”
The nature of the Holy spirit is so highly unspecified … that if it has a major place in the Trinity, then it would imply the Trinity is a variable.
Sure, we can find Biblical phrases on the spirit. But most often? Highly unspecified.
So is our religion, the Trinity, wide open?
Greg. on 22 Apr 2009 at 8:43 pm #
Hi Kara again,
Ok I have read most of the overview on the Trinity and I will simply ask one question for now. Three persons but not separate??
Can someone please explain, Interaction in a loving relationship but not separate please explain.
In my understanding to have a loving interaction with another you must be separated beings.
Greg.
RB on 22 Apr 2009 at 9:31 pm #
Greg,
Let me ask you a question:
The trinity doctrine states the Jesus is God, that would make Jesus the Father as well and the Holy Spirit also.
Heres the question;
In Matthew 26:36-46, we see that Jesus is struggling with the will. Now if Jesus is God as people want you to believe, then the Will of the Father would be the same as the Will of the Son, correct.?
But we can clearly read that it is not, so the only and final conclusion is that Jesus is not God.
This makes the trinity doctine a work of satan to disrupt the church and lead them to a false belief. Which he seems to have been successful in doing. People go evan farther to vindicate this doctrine by claiming that it is a “orthodox tradition” that unless you believe in this doctrine you are not saved and have no salvation. But if you have taken the time to really read this whole blog, no one seems to be able to back that by Scripture, and never will be able to, that is unless they re-write the Scriptures to make it so.
I, personally, have asked this question here as well as abroad and no one has any Scripture to back why they believe it and why preachers claim that this is a MUST for salvation. It goes against Scripture to say and claim that anything other than belief in Christ is the means of Salvation.
Unfortuantely, as you have noticed, that many will claim belief and support for this doctrine but many will fail to produce true Scripture that supports it wihtout leaving the one questioning somewhat still dumbfounded and confused as to why they believe in something they cannot even remotely explain, and sad as you have noticed as well, that many shy away from giving a clear and evidentially supported explaination.
But i will stand corrected when anyone can show me viable Scriptural referral that believeing in this doctrine garruntees Salvation.
R.
Kara Kittle on 22 Apr 2009 at 9:46 pm #
I will say this, three persons, separate individuals, loving interaction. Yes, this is possible. We can’t apply natural understanding because there is no comparable way to describe it.
Two individuals become one flesh at marriage.
Three individuals have been one since eternity.
A baby must be born of male and female.
A person has a body, spirit and soul.
A person has a mind and a brain.
So it is evident that people are of tri-istic nature (made that word up).
And we are created in the image of God. Jesus is the fullness of the Godhead bodily, or the manifest express image of God.
I don’t know what more to say. Wait, I did think of something.
Were the verses about the Trinity inserted to cause confusion?
Was the four gospels just put there by the Devil?
Did Jesus commit fraud by throwing his voice?
Is he coming in power, is the right hand of power just a force?
Is the spirit spoken of can be something like “school spirit”?
Was Jesus a raging maniac who lived a delusional life?
Those questions have been tossed by people I know. I think you should consider those. And remember the Bible may not say expressly the word trinity but the phrase infallible word is not there either, and no where does it say the phrase absolute truth, but we accept it.
RB on 23 Apr 2009 at 9:43 am #
Kara,
care to demonstrate how “two become one flesh” for i still have troubles understanding my beloved spouse even after all these blissful years-?
Which to me clearly indicates that we have not “become one flesh”
–R.
Dave Z on 23 Apr 2009 at 11:27 am #
To RB,
Rob states in his article “The short answer is that it is not quite accurate to say that belief in the doctrine of the Trinity is essential for salvation. Doctrinal accuracy on any theological subject is in any case at most a litmus test or barometer of the genuineness of a person’s salvation, not a prerequisite for receiving the gift of salvation.” So that answers one of your questions. Rob has also posted a link to his more in-depth study on the topic. You asked for Biblical evidence – have you looked at Rob’s study?
You are right that the Bible does not explicitly teach the doctrine of the Trinity. It does insist that there is only one God. In the OT, that is God the Father. Then the NT describes Jesus as God, and (although not quite so clearly) describes the Holy Spirit as God. The doctrine of the Trinity just reconciles those truths, taking the implicit teachings and bringing them together into a unified concept. It also aligns with the OT passages that refer to God in the plural, as when he decribes himsel as “us.”
How can this be? Well, how can there be a being with no beginning and no ending? Some things are simply beyond our understanding. Perhaps the best illustration I know of is from C.S. Lewis. He writes that we can draw something one dimensional – a line. But, if we introduce a second dimension, we can combine four lines to form a square. Add a third dimension and we can combine six squares to form a cube. So a cube, a single object, is composed of 24 lines. To borrow his concept, but with a more current theme, a cartoon character, say, Homer Simpson, lives in a two dimensional world. He understands height and width, but has never experienced depth. He can see a square, but a cube would be theoretical at best. Yet there are more than two dimensions. We live in 3 (4 if we count time). Current physics identifies 10 or 11. Some cosmologists believe there were 20 at the time of the Big Bang. So is it possible that in a different dimensional reality, three persons could be one being? I’d say yes, that could be possible. Not something to teach as fact, but a way of understanding the existance of the possibility. And of course, like all illustrations, it will break down at some point. But it helps me understand the concept.
So, maybe this still leaves “the one questioning somewhat still dumbfounded and confused” but I expect some unanswered questions and hard-to-understand concepts when dealing with a vastly superior form of life that can create something as amazing as the universe and life itself.
Dr. G. on 23 Apr 2009 at 11:41 am #
Three beings in one, might be simply explained?
In some places ( Ezekiel?) we have one chariot, with several faces.
So we are looking at a complex being, and seeing one face for the moment. And then we might see another face … and speak to it as if it was separate. Not knowing the two are joined, behind the face.
So we see this or that “facet” of God, and think that is him; but then there are the other facets … or faces.
Does this or some similar analogy hold up? I’m not sure. But it is an easy way to illustrate this.
Or to extend another more common metaphor: a blind man sees the leg of an elephant, and think an elephant is like a tree trunk; another feels the ear, and thinks an elephant is like a big leaf. To extend this: one day, we put these “separate” impressions together … and see that these allegedly separate creatures are “different” parts of the same thing.
Probably someone could find even simpler and better examples.
How do these hold up theologically? I’m not sure. But maybe they are a useful, simple first way to get a grasp on this otherwise seemingly impossible concept.
Dave Z on 23 Apr 2009 at 11:51 am #
Also to RB,
Regarding two becoming one flesh, Kara misquotes the reference, which actually reads “the two WILL become one flesh,” not the two HAVE become one flesh. The simplest meaning is biological – the two “fleshes” have a child – they become one flesh. Then they have another child, becoming one flesh again. That at least covers the physical part. Since it presents the one flesh as future, it could even refer to the growing closeness that married couples should ideally experience.
When Jesus quotes the original Genesis account, he seems to focus on a more spiritual sense that, again, is hard to understand, but it is one of those things that the Bible teaches.
And remember, we’re trying to understand concepts that were originally expressed in Hebrew, which has been described as a very “image-based” language. There may be nuance that just doesn’t show up in english.
Kara Kittle on 23 Apr 2009 at 11:56 am #
Dave Z,
The KJV is translate word for word from the Tanakh for the OT.
The reference is in both OT and NT.
The tanakh says they become one flesh….Jesus says “for this cause shall a man leave his mother and father and shall “cleave” unto his wife and they shall become one flesh.” nothing in that statement regards procreation.
For what cause? Jesus said nothing about children, so what do you suppose that verse means?
Kara Kittle on 23 Apr 2009 at 12:08 pm #
RB,
I have been married 18 years, so I think I know what you mean. Yes, as the Bible says we become one flesh. When my husband and I are talking to other people we are associated together. It’s almost as we are one unit.
When someone wants to know if we want to do something he always says he asks me and I ask him. When conducting business and people try to run over me, he will take over. But not because he is the authority over me, but he demands a certain authority from the other person.
CMP discussed this in one of his blogs about how someone mistreated his wife and he stepped in to take control of the situation.
It does imply a unity of mind and spirit. Even though our flesh gets in the way sometimes. That is becoming one flesh when a man and a woman can walk in agreement with each other and have mutual respect of each other that it compliments.
In Proverbs it talks about the virtuous woman…it says her husband is well known because of her. Because whatever it was she did brought honor, not only for herself but her whole family. God is about honor. For both husbands and wives, but the whole family.
Again, the assumption about flesh coming together to procreate is way out of line. My husband and I never had children and can never have children, period. So it is an out of context statement regarding us. But it does not make us incomplete, thank you.
Dave Z on 23 Apr 2009 at 1:41 pm #
Kara, the statement COULD be a generalization – when men and women get married, they generally produce children, and that was especially true until the 20th century brought more effective birth control.
So are you ruling out an historical interpretation (I am not alone in my viewpoint) just because you never had kids?
And I did reference Jesus’ quotation of the Genesis passage.
Kara Kittle on 23 Apr 2009 at 1:59 pm #
DaveZ,
Procreation was a Catholic doctrine of why people were to be married. Does this mean that because my husband and I are unable to have children mean that we have failed?
And what does the inability to have children mean it is due to birth control as you imply? I seem to recall several women in the Bible were not able to but by some miraculous move of God were able to. So no, the concept of procreation as the reason to get married because in the garden Adam and Eve “knew” each other and yet had no children in the garden. It was only after they were removed from it was she able to conceive. But Jesus was referring to Adam and Eve becoming one flesh before fall. Still has nothing to do with procreation.
So because there was something physically wrong with me means I have to miss out on the blessing of being married to my husband? You have missed the point totally of marriage to begin with. Women are not supposed to be viewed as a baby making machine and men should never think of them that way. Women who have children are not better than those who do not have them. But that would be a social and cultural statement in place of scripture. And you obviously do not realize there are several types of birth control methods in the Bible, one of which one particular man was struck dead for attempting.
And is does not negate my statement. Marriage was not just designed for procreation. That is a cultural philosophy.
Dr. G. on 23 Apr 2009 at 2:19 pm #
To anyone who feels they have not “cleaved” to their spouse:
1) Cleaving together could be a metaphor for sex. Procreational or not.
2) Those who do not do this, could still cleave together spiritually.
3) Those married persons who feel they do neither? Probably they have bonded spiritually, and just don’t know it. Often people don’t know they love each other … until they temporarily separate. “Absence makes the heart grow fonder.”
4) Or those finally, as to those who married persons who have really done none of this at all? Should try to do it.
Surely, one could at least have the sentiment of pity, for someone you don’t have much bonding with. Or even self-pity and a feeling of martyrdom, might be better than nothing. And out of that, you could experience the discovery of the love of the martyr Jesus? And then a kind of broader bonding. That could grow.
Dave Z on 23 Apr 2009 at 2:21 pm #
And you missed my point – GENERALIZATION! jenn-ur-al-i-zaa-shun! My wife and I, after 25 years of marriage, and medical problems, do not have children either, but I don’t think that negates the possible interpretation of the passage.
Kara, I have held my tongue over many of your comments, but I think it’s time to speak up. You wrote to Greg, “don’t ever think others are better than you or you are less than anyone else.” This is consistent with your anti-education rant on another thread, but it is clearly in direct conflict with Scripture and the most basic teachings of Christianity. Take a look at Philippians 2:3 – “in humility consider others better than yourselves.” And go ahead and read the rest of the passage too. James has some pretty good comments on humility too. MOF, you’ll find it throughout the Bible.
And make sure about your “facts” before you start quoting them. On another recent thread you wrote:
“Charles Manson and Family commit murder. Charles Manson, member of Church of Satan by Anton LeVay.
Rolling Stones concert at Altamont Speedway, during song “Sympathy For the Devil” four people are shot dead during melee.”
Let’s see some documentation on that. To my knowledge, Manson never claimed membership in the Church of Satan and never met LaVey.
You will not be able to document the Altamont item because you got it all wrong. One person (not 4) died after being stabbed (not shot) by a Hell’s Angel when he approached the stage waving a gun. And it was during “Under my Thumb”(not “Sympathy for the Devil.”)
If you can’t get basic, easily verifiable facts straight, why should I accept anything you say? Looks to me like you could use some education.
And, in response to the anti-education shots you took at me and at others, including the owner of this blog, I will say that my education, formal and otherwise, has had the effect of teaching me how much I DON’T know. It is my education that has taught me humility – I have truly learned that many, many others understand many, many things far better than I do. And for someone who rejects education, you sure were ready to educate me by “sharing a little secret” with me,” and “showing me the points I missed.” What arrogance and condescension! And then you imply (while knowing virtually nothing about me) that all I have is knowledge of a book and no relationship with God. You do not know me but you took it upon yourself to question my salvation (“until you understand just who God is through relationship you really won’t truly know God”) because I asked someone else (my question was not even directed at you) about their education.
Get the beam out of your eye, then I’ll let you take a look at mine.
Dr. G. on 23 Apr 2009 at 2:38 pm #
KK: I’d have to support Z. on this.
It’s possible for educated people to be stuck up; its also possible for uneducated people, to be stuck up about that. Working class pride or whatever.
Working Culture is full of tales about educated people making mistakes. But uneducated people make them too, of course.
There’s a kind of working- and middle-class vanity out there too. Probably that’s what elected George Bush for two terms in fact; the insistence that intellectuals were imperfect … combined with however vain assumption that ordinary Americans in contrast, were far superior. And never made mistakes on their own.
Kara Kittle on 23 Apr 2009 at 4:32 pm #
Dave Z
Let me see, you held your tongue until I contradicted you. Interesting, if I was so wrong then you should have stated so. Can you prove the verse, without eisegeting, the proof of marriage being only for procreation?
And what I was saying to Greg, yes, people like you want to flaunt intellectual superiority. And this is one area we should never feel discouraged about. Do you feel superior to me? Are you more educated than me? Does it really matter that you might be? Think carefully because I am going to tell you that you nor Dr.Z is not intellectually superior to anyone no matter how hard you attempt to be on here.
Apparently you have not read any documentation out there.
Yes, Charles Manson was a member of the Church of Satan, he confessed it, Susan Atkins who was a secretary confessed it, and Anton LeVay confessed it. And the point about Rolling Stones singing it, I have seen the video myself. But apparently nothing any one says as proof will not be good enough for you. It’s ok.
But this attitude that you and Dr.G have stinks. You present yourself as moral superiors and Dr. G portraying himself as “devil’s advocate” makes himself look in your eyes to be worth more.
Am I anti-education? I am against education used to beat people up with. I am tired of seeing people push around those they feel are simpletons. To which Dr. Z has done and now you are attempting. I am against intellectual arrogancy, not education. Apparently you did not read the post I wrote about Blaise Pascal and his commentary on intellectualism and education. No, you only read what you disagree with and then jump on it.
Now without eisegeting…show me the verse that says explicitly where marriage is only for procreation. And not generalizations because that implies a social view from you. It is your social and cultural view. Without your social view show me the verse.
I will stand on what I say. If you want to question my intellectualism or education you have the right to do so all day long, but it will not make you better than me. I typed a verse yesterday you ignored so I will say it again.
Colossians 2:8
8Beware lest any man spoil you through philosophy and vain deceit, after the tradition of men, after the rudiments of the world, and not after Christ.
Just so we get this right…
Beware
Pronunciation:
\bi-ˈwer, bē-\
Function:
verb
Etymology:
Middle English been war, from been to be + war careful — more at be, ware
Date:
14th century
intransitive verb : to be on one’s guard transitive verb 1 : to take care of 2 : to be wary of
Spoil
Pronunciation:
\ˈspȯi(-ə)l\
Function:
noun
Etymology:
Middle English spoile, from Anglo-French espuille, from espuiller
Date:
14th century
1 a: plunder taken from an enemy in war or from a victim in robbery : loot b: public offices made the property of a successful party —usually used in plural c: something valuable or desirable gained through special effort or opportunism or in return for a favor —usually used in plural2 a: spoliation, plundering b: the act of damaging : harm, impairment3: an object of plundering : prey4: earth and rock excavated or dredged5: an object damaged or flawed in the making
Philosophy
Pronunciation:
\fə-ˈlä-s(ə-)fē\
Function:
noun
Inflected Form(s):
plural -phies
Etymology:
Middle English philosophie, from Anglo-French, from Latin philosophia, from Greek, from philosophos philosopher
Date:
14th century
1 a (1): all learning exclusive of technical precepts and practical arts (2): the sciences and liberal arts exclusive of medicine, law, and theology (3): the 4-year college course of a major seminary b (1)archaic : physical science (2): ethics c: a discipline comprising as its core logic, aesthetics, ethics, metaphysics, and epistemology2 a: pursuit of wisdom b: a search for a general understanding of values and reality by chiefly speculative rather than observational means c: an analysis of the grounds of and concepts expressing fundamental beliefs3 a: a system of philosophical concepts b: a theory underlying or regarding a sphere of activity or thought 4 a: the most basic beliefs, concepts, and attitudes of an individual or group b: calmness of temper and judgment befitting a philosopher
Rudiments
Pronunciation:
\ˈrü-də-mənt\
Function:
noun
Etymology:
Latin rudimentum beginning, from rudis raw, rude
Date:
1548
1: a basic principle or element or a fundamental skill —usually used in plural 2 a: something unformed or undeveloped : beginning —usually used in plural b (1): a body part so deficient in size or structure as to be entirely unable to perform its normal function (2): an organ just beginning to develop : anlage
— ru·di·men·tal Listen to the pronunciation of rudimental \ˌrü-də-ˈmen-təl\ adjective
Ty Merriam Webster online.
Now, if we are warned to beware that people will use philosophy to deceive us, then perhaps I should question you and Dr.Z’s agenda. After all it is plain to see you have little regard for those you view as less than you, but demand we recognize you for some self-imposed greatness.
You claim a generalization and yet never show explicitly. And no, you don’t present humility. You do for CMP, but not anyone else.
And no, I am not against education, I am against intellectual arrogance. I am not greater than you, and you are not greater than me. Jesus said “the least shall be greatest and the greatest shall be least.”
Now as for your comment about it being a possible meaning, then perhaps mine is a possible meaning. A POSSIBLE..in your words.
Kara Kittle on 23 Apr 2009 at 4:39 pm #
I can do this all you want. We have been reduced to ad hominem.
Kara Kittle on 23 Apr 2009 at 4:41 pm #
That green link up there was from the cut and paste from Merriam-Webster online.
Dr. G. on 23 Apr 2009 at 5:37 pm #
K: I did not say that sex was for procreation. I said the opposite of that. This proves you are jumping to rash judgements, all the timne.
Kara Kittle on 23 Apr 2009 at 5:42 pm #
Dr G,
No that statement was made by Dave Z, you did not specify which parts you agree on. But you do agree with Dave Z.
RB on 23 Apr 2009 at 7:17 pm #
Dave Z,
Rob states in his article “The short answer is that it is not[...]
Yes, i have and it really is lacking in my opinion.–
You are right that the Bible does not explicitly teach the doctrine of [...]
you say that the NT describes Christ as God-”"but not clearly”", But at the same time it seems that you deny the Scriptures that make it “”clear”" that He was not. So what are you saying?– [i will take clarity over dellusional presumptions]–
So, in all this what did you answer in regards to Jesus having a completely different Will than that of the Father?
For if Jesus demonstrated that His will was not the Will of the Father than Jesus Being God is a myth. For should God be the Father and God be the Son – how is it that the two -Father and Son- had two different Wills? The trinity doctrine is false, or are you saying that God was imperfect within Himself?
-Kara,
I wouldn’t put too much faith in CMP.–
As to the two becoming one flesh, i still do not read how two fleshs become one, but i do see a lot of “”mental compatability”, and a lot of babbling. Ya think that it has nothing to do with the flesh in terms of “flesh”, but leaning more towards the “”spiritual”"?
R.
Dr. G. on 23 Apr 2009 at 7:25 pm #
One flesh could mean sex. Two bodies get together very, very close; interpenetrate in strange ways; and almost merge. They cleave. In a very, very physical way.
Dave Z on 23 Apr 2009 at 7:32 pm #
Kara, it seems like you didn’t hear anything I said. You still know nothing about me, nothing about my education (or lack thereof) yet you have made all kinds of judgments about me and accused me of pushing people around, feeling morally superior, looking at others as simpletons and flaunting intellectual superiority. And having knowledge without relationship.
And you’re twisting my words – I never said marriage was only for procreation. Go back and read what I said. It’s still there, just a few lines up.
And you still did not provide documentation of your claims regarding Manson and Altamont. You just repeated your assertions. That’s not the same thing as documentation.
Dr. G. on 23 Apr 2009 at 7:37 pm #
RB: It is thought by most theologians, that the way God manifested himself, changed slightly, from the Old to the New Testaments. As might be appropriate to speaking to different peoples.
What was the difference? The Old Testament God is generally thought to be rather more severe, than Jesus: he often allowed wars, and enforced a death penalty for working on the Sabbath for example. While Jesus was much less severe; refusing to prosecute a suspected Adultress for example. And never himself killing anyone, it seems. The New Testament describes and justified this, in part, as transition from the “law” to “Grace”; justified by a “new convenant” or new agreement between God and man.
Curiously, Jesus never or almost never called himself specifically and by name, “God.” And when asked if he was the “Christ,” 99 times out of 100, did not respond directly. But merely asked others questions: “who do you say I am.” And so forth.
Still, today we like to say they were – not entirely different; but are say, different manifestations or facets of – the same God.
(Z: cf. however parts of the NT, that warn of the “new” patches tearing loose of the “old” material?).
Dr. G. on 23 Apr 2009 at 8:00 pm #
Why do we have to believe in the Trinity? If at all?
In part, some obvious problems crop up, if we don’t believe for example, that 1) Jesus is equal to God. And part of the Trinity. If we do that, then we might start obeying the Old Testament – of “God” – more than the New Testament of Jesus. And in that case, we might … champion the violence and severe pentalties of Old Testament “law”; that God himself might not want to enforce, on our era. (God giving us the gentler Jesus for our more civilized time).
As for the importance of 3) the Holy Spirit? Anyone else have any ideas here? In part, it seems to me, that aspect of the trinity, is quite open-ended, and not firmly defined. But that very vagueness, might be part of its virture. It might borrow whatever is good in Gnosticism (if anything); if nothing else, its vagueness imparts a lot of flexibility into the system.
To be sure, at times “Cessationists” get tired of that flexiblity offered by gifts of the Holy Spirit; Pentacostals using the Ghost to justify all kinds of novelties, that other Christians would not support.
Can we get along with two out of three say? Many people like especially to suggest that the New Testament and Jesus, could be separated from the OT; which could in fact be forgotten, as old, outdated, old covenant stuff.
Personally though, I like the balance between the three. Though to be sure, many are troubled by apparent inconsistencies, difficulties reconciling or “harmonizing” the messages attributed to each of the three, into one consistent message.
How to fit all three together, is (/was) in fact, one of the major problems, projects for Theologians and corner-church preachers, for millennia. Many tried for centuries (and to this very day) to completely reconcile the Old Testament theology to the New. Though many new theologians recently, have surprisingly, simply declared that such “harmonizations” are just impossible.
While others look to a “parousia,” or Second Coming, to clarify and fix all this, somehow.
Dr. G. on 23 Apr 2009 at 8:10 pm #
K: is it possible that some of the difficulties in your life, that you mentioned, are still causing your problems communicating here and now? If so, would it be good for you to mention them to new people? So they understand where you are coming from?
What is your usual practice here? I think if you mentioned the difficulties in your life, it would help others understand you.
RB on 23 Apr 2009 at 8:54 pm #
DrG.
Hahahahahaha! [sorry, but i just could not help but laugh]
that was good reading, yet again as many before you, you typed many words but in reality said nothing. Not to mention you alluded the question that was put forth, and i could not have made it any clearer.
Needless to say that this doctrine originated from the catholic church, which also prays to Mary and to Paul, so are we to now start praying to Mary and Paul -outside of the catholic denomination- since they promote this as “”biblical”" and then we will add it to the “orthodoxical traditions” of man and call it Scriptural-?
R.
Kara Kittle on 23 Apr 2009 at 10:11 pm #
Dave Z,
I am not making an assertion that you have any education or not. I do not know, and neither does it make a difference. What I am saying is this, you had to jump in the rebut me telling Greg to not feel bad when he thinks he is not as intellectual as other people. And tell me what was so wrong telling him that? Because it might make him not feel so bad about himself and that could be a mortal sin to think that way?
It seems that the way you pounce on my statements about education that I offended yours in some manner. If you are educated then you should not worry.
You want to make an issue out of a verse that I stated I viewed it as such and you refused to say it could be the way I see it, but forced your opinion by making statements like “generalization” and spelling it out for me. I don’t want to know your educational background, or lack of it perhaps. What I am stating is this, pseudo-intellectualism is not education.
Greg was asking a question about Trinity and the reference I used was not good enough for you. Do you suppose I meant it was physical? It is a physical union and it is a spiritual union. God did take Adam’s rib to make Eve with to which Adam said “bone of my bone and flesh of my flesh”. Was she an individual? Yes. And God said “she shall be called woman, because she came from man”. They shared a rib, and yet were two different people. And yet nothing in this implies children.
And you made the issue of my response to Greg. Nothing in what I said first was hostile. Now we can go all the way back to the beginning and start over. But you have to realize that as much as people are reading my posts, they read yours as well. Are you going to take issue with them as well? Like you did with RB? We all don’t have to agree with you or Dr. Z and you don’t have to agree with us.
Let’s just get over it. Greg wanted help. Did any of this really help? And my difficulties are really not greater or worse than any one else. And yes, you were very condescending to other people and then you feel compelled only to correct me when I contradict you. So that causes me to think you really had no issues until it didn’t agree with you. If you haven’t figured out yet I am not the only one in this world who disagrees with you. And I am not worried about whether you disagree with me.
I asked you for a verse, could you supply it?
Dave Z on 23 Apr 2009 at 11:51 am #
Also to RB,
Regarding two becoming one flesh, Kara misquotes the reference, which actually reads “the two WILL become one flesh,” not the two HAVE become one flesh. The simplest meaning is biological – the two “fleshes” have a child – they become one flesh. Then they have another child, becoming one flesh again. That at least covers the physical part. Since it presents the one flesh as future, it could even refer to the growing closeness that married couples should ideally experience.
So the simplest meaning…but then you backtrack
Dave Z on 23 Apr 2009 at 1:41 pm #
Kara, the statement COULD be a generalization – when men and women get married, they generally produce children, and that was especially true until the 20th century brought more effective birth control.
So which is it Dave?
Can we view marriage as a union of physical and spiritual? The physical act does not mean that children will always be born. God only spoke to Adam and Eve of future children after the fall.
Marriage was the first covenant relationship recorded in the Bible. It was created and ordained by God, and covenants are sealed in blood to be effective. The marriage covenant was sealed in that consummation of the marriage. And we don’t have to explain it here, but we know what it is.
Dr. G. on 24 Apr 2009 at 9:08 am #
RB:
Actually I’m partially in agreement with you on the Trinity:
1) We are saved by the Grace of God … not by any belief (or works?). Including belief in the Trinity.
And as you correctly note …
2) The Bible to be sure, does mention these three entities, fairly often. So anyone who sez he wants to follow the God of the BIble, should know about them, in some way.
3) But now the third problem, to be sure: just exactly how should we definine the relative relationship of these three?
4) To be sure, wars have been fought over that.
5) So indeed, perhaps just a vague sense of the three is good enough. While any attempt to define things too closely … is problematic. As you suggest.
6) Thus avoiding more wars.
7) Though perhaps there is still one practical problem that lingers: in a Bible that might seem to give all three considerable weight – which one do we follow, if one seems to say something slightly different than the rest?
My remarks above, were intended as a general intro to this problem, which I will now articulate more precisely: it is often thought by scholars that there is a real difference,in the theology, character of “God” in the OT (Old Testament) … vs. the son of God, Jesus, in the New.
And if there is, then, in cases where they seem to differ, and ask for different things … which do we honor most?
a) If you say that we should follow “God” himself, God the “Father,” then that is the Old Testament.
b) If you say that we should follow Jesus – because Jesus brought us a “new covenant” that supersedes the old God’s “law” – as parts of your text suggest – then you have superseded bits of God, with Jesus. His “old” word with a “new” one. Though both are still in the Bible.
And indeed – in for example emphasizing “Follow Jesus” (and not, say, ” Jesus and God”) – you have already begun to set up a structure, even a hierarchy, in the relationship of God and Jesus, say.
c) To be sure, I agree with your general idea; in fact, I rather like it, believe it or not. I think the whole “Trinity” thing has been hugely, fatally overblown. So maybe we should just fudge the whole matter; and let people wander about on this, on their own.
d) Especially since the best efforts of scholars on this, to date, don’t seem entirely satisfactory.
Many theologians have tried to solve this, by themselves, aside from the Bible. By structuring the relationship; buidling a “Trinity” in part by sophistical “harmonizations.”
Others by especially … telling us to follow “Jesus” and “Grace” … vs. “law” etc. (code words for the OT “God” too by the way).
What should we do? Just go with Jesus? That’s the usual message in most churches. To me it seems that even you yourself were hinting at that, with the emphasis on Jesus Christ our Personal Savior or whatever, above.
To be sure though, even the hierarchy implied, euphemistically, by the at first innocuous “Follow Jesus,” I suggest, causes problems. What about “God,” after all? Give up on the Old Testament?
9) Personally, I often fudge it myself. Just a little of this, and a little of that, all mixed up. I like a fairly even balance between the Old and New Testament gods. Though with overall, the generous grace of Jesus – rather than the hasty executons of God – deciding ties, I guess. With just enough of the Holy Spirit thrown in, to give us a variable; some freedom.
Might sound like a tossed salad to be sure; though more conventionally, you might call it three facets, godheads, avatars, somehow connected. But one facing humanity more directly, as one of us? That is Jesus.
10) But to be sure, it is all highly problematic. SO consider this option, useful on a theology blog: pointing out to churchgoers the problematic nature of the relationship of the three, might be a good way to open up the windows and little; and introduce believers to … the openness of God; and theology. To notice the problematic nature of our “Truth” … and help us seek to learn more; and to be less dogmatic too. Since things are not as firmly fixed, as everyone thought. Not even in the matter of the Trinity.
So how about that solution: deliberately and constantly and systematically leaving the exact nature of the Trinity … open and undecided?
11) People can cleave all they want; but as for the three main figures of the God head? How to they do it? Who knows?
12) We are used to being students, and always having an answer. And we are embarrased to thus give the most honest response at times to things that are problematic. But here this response to the exact nature of the Trinity should be: “we don’t know.”
RB on 27 Apr 2009 at 11:17 am #
DrG,
Articulation: problematic at best is it to construct a rhetoric that will persuade even the simplest of us all to generate conversational intercourse. Detrimental is it as well for us to come to agreement of the Word, if only to bring into Unification the Glorious Body of Christ into its proper perspective and to Unification of the Church, The Bride of Christ and the Manifestation of the Almighty Himself.
The three Entity’s, well I prefer to believe in Two, but I do not believe that it makes me Bi-nitarian. The third as you speak of was, to me by Biblical precepts, not an Entity, but rather a human form of the Spoken Word of God. The Manifestation, as Paul puts it, of God but NOT God Himself. In Jn 1:1 we are assured of this as well as v14. You will also note that it never states in the NT that God took human form or that God came to earth.
In the same way that the Word of God states it. Yet I can agree that when we try and make feeble attempts to define the Creator we usually come up way short.
Why can not we just accept them as they are spoken of in the Word, this eliminates dissention and possibly bring the Body of Christ back into the “Unified Body of Christ”, all working for one purpose – to Promote the Kingdom of the Most High.
And what is wrong with following God? Was not Jesus the Mediator between God and Man? Did He not say that we would have Life and more abundantly? [speaking spiritually of course]. Paul, even in many of his letters, encouraged and spoke of to us to follow the example of Christ as Christ lived, up to and including to die for us, Did not Paul in many of his letters seek to compel us to do the same as Christ had, did not Christ himself say that if we loved Him we would keep His commandments, were not these the commandments that were given at the first and then as Christ lived did he not say that He came to do the will of the Father?
To say that we should follow Jesus, are we not in essence doing the Will of the Father as well? Which was and ever shall be – to Promote the Kingdom of God. I foresee no denial of God to follow His Greatest Disciple and His Beloved Son, for then are we not following God?
Harmonization to speak of is, that we Love God and seek to Promote God. Yet, as crafty as that old booger is[the adversary] he has successfully created dissentions and denominational walls, that not only dispel the Unity of the Body of Christ but break it down to mere rubble that the world mocks at and geers at, under their breathe they see only fighting and dis-loyalty to God and His Beloved Kingdom. They witness dis-unity to one another and the influx of the deceit of Christians hiding under false pretences that lead others astray, Paul called these stumbling blocks to the world that leads them away from Christ and the Cross and not TO the Cross of Christ and to the God of the Creation, Our God.
The New Covenant is that God would deal with each individually and give all the opportunity to become sacrifices for the Kingdom, tearing the veil of partition between God and Man – through Jesus Christ His Beloved Son and our Blessed Redeemer. The Law of God did not change, yet the Sacrifice that was to be done yearly was now accomplished for all at one time and in one Blessed Fulfillment, so that no one is without excuse and that everyone is now held accountable….
R.
Dr. G. on 27 Apr 2009 at 11:29 am #
RB: are you one and the same, as the author of the blog prompt/intro? The points of view seem slightly different.
RB on 27 Apr 2009 at 1:06 pm #
Not related to Rob Bowman at all. we stand on somewhat different ground..
his last para begins like this:
“If a person rejects the doctrine of the Trinity, that person has cut himself off from the church.”
i totally disagree, this is not Biblical nor near what the Scriptures speak – and you-?
R.
Dr. G. on 27 Apr 2009 at 1:13 pm #
Probably has cut himself off from the Church … but not from God or Truth.
RB on 28 Apr 2009 at 11:10 am #
Actually DrG, Rob HAS to support the doctrine as a MUST for salvation.
He has not stated that he does not and he has to claim that it does in order to maintain his “orthodox tradition”. plus he would not be allowed to post such type of blogs that speak against it if he didn’t support it, especially on reclaiming the mind.
Ha! reclaiming the mind – almost sounds contradictory in essence and nature.
You ever peruse their curicculum?
R.
Dr. G. on 28 Apr 2009 at 11:48 am #
Careful; often theologians have … interesting undertones, not explicitly stated.
To be sure, many pastors are committed publically to various dogmas, like the Trinity for example. IN part since their church insists on it.
Still, maybe we can see Mr. Bowman … broadening out from a very strict or literal belief in the Trinity; to suggesting …? That somehow to be sure 1) the Trinity seems problematic in many aspects.
And … 2) while perhaps emphasizing Jesus, our author seems to be suggesting, 3) from his examination of the Trinity, that it is hard to find such a concentration even on Jesus, entirely justified in the Bible itself.
Which would be … more daring than many would have thought?
4) Some of us who have to defend the Dogmatics of this or that church, for this or that reason, will often find, on close research, that … 5) though God and Bible may be great, 6) various church doctrines, dogmas, are not.
Or 6) some even go on to question the Bible itself too.
7) Rather than go this far, most religious thinkers like to just present a sort of …. puzzlement over … biblical and church positions. A puzzlement that they suggest, has not yet been resolved.
Which allows a lot of openness on theological questions; an openness on questions about God, that is not quite as “dogmatic” or firm as most people might think.
RB on 28 Apr 2009 at 1:23 pm #
hrmph!
“”Careful; often theologians have … interesting undertones, not explicitly stated.
—To be sure, many pastors are committed publically to various dogmas, like the Trinity for example. IN part since their church insists on it.— “”
Are you imply-ing that there are preachers living and telling people they believe in something that they really do not and therefore are living a lie//?
R.
Dr. G. on 28 Apr 2009 at 1:40 pm #
Yes I am.
RB on 28 Apr 2009 at 10:02 pm #
DrG,
Well i tought that we would agree, so moving forward.
Why is this? why do we insist on decieveing ourselves to “fit in” with the traditionalists and the orthodoxical crowd?
I can understand, sad as it may be, that some are still in contept of the Scriptures by clinging to traditional precepts that speak not of clarity but of a possible paganistic assimilation of the Truth. This is not only problematic with the scholarly, but the unearned as well. For the unlearned are questioning the Biblical ethics and the clarity of the Scriptures to what the learned are speaking and teaching. Then, when the young deny or refuse to accept, the learned shun them and woo them slowly away by their inability to grasp what the Scriptures ARE clear of concerning this issue. This leaves the young as prey, for their inability to clearly speak and teach the clarity of the Scriptures they decieve the young by stating that this doctrine is pertinant for salvation – yet they can not validate this claim by Scripture. And now the young have been devoured.
Should the one seeking the Truth, as you suggest, they will examine and test the doctrine by the use of Scritpure, then by the leadership of the Holy Spirit the Truth will be revealed. Prayerfully. Thus creating discernment and an ability to try the spirit(s).
Should we begin to question the Word, then we begin to question ourselves and whether we are learning truth or just another way of thought. Did we go to school to learn how to think -or- What to think? Dogmatics, are they of neccessity or for a lack of understanding what is clear? Thus creating arguementative dssentions within hte Body and disrupting the flow of the Spirit? So now we question the firmness of our Faith.
The Scriptures have given us a beginning and an end, what is there to be so discombobbulated over that we conjecture what is not clear and replace it with what is clear? Not only confusing ourselves, but making what we do not understand as a doctrine that is just as confusing as we are confuse in trying to explain it as a means for salvation? When the Scriptures ARE clear how Salvation is attained….
R.
RB on 04 May 2009 at 8:39 pm #
yo DrG, & Rob Bowman,
In his [http://www.irr.org/trinity-part-IV.html] under [F. Jesus has all the attributes of God #4 - Eternal: ]
He[Bowman] use Hebrews 7.3 in that he is using this verse to speak of Christ as being eternal. Yet he uses it out of context for the actual verse starts at v1. where the Authur is referring to Melchizedek and not Christ, the only referral to Christ is that He is the “Son of God”….
Now this Melchizedek, king of Salem, priest of the most high God, met Abraham as he was returning from defeating the kings and blessed him. To him also Abraham apportioned a tithe of everything. His name first means king of righteousness, then king of Salem, that is, king of peace. Without father, without mother, without genealogy, he has neither beginning of days nor end of life but is like the son of God, and he remains a priest for all time.
Hebrews 7:1-3.
Maybe Rob could sign on and explain how/why he did this…
R.
Kara Kittle on 04 May 2009 at 9:25 pm #
RB,
Abraham rejoiced to see Jesus’ day.
Rb on 05 May 2009 at 7:12 am #
Kk,
Thats what the Word tells us, so then does that mean he was still alive when Jesus was Born?
But this does not releive Bowman for his mis-representation of the Word- does it now?
R.
Rob Bowman on 07 May 2009 at 10:35 pm #
RB,
You are half right about Hebrews 7:3. Grammatically, the words “having neither beginning of days nor end of life…he remains a priest forever” refer to Melchizedek–but specifically as a type of Christ: “but made like [or "resembling"] the Son of God.” The author is not saying that Melchizedek literally had no parents, no birth or death, and is still a priest. He is using a Jewish method of typology to explain Psalm 110:4, a key verse in the author’s argument, which states that the Messiah would be a priest “after the order of Melchizedek.” There was no literal priestly order or succession; the language is used poetically and typologically in Psalm 110:4. Melchizedek appears in the record in Genesis 14 without any mention of his parentage or birth, and nothing is said about his death. This mysterious lack of genealogical information (which stands in contrast to the patriarchs and other key figures in Genesis) makes Melchizedek a type of the Son of God, who really is our priest forever by virtue of his indestructible, eternal life (see Heb. 7:16). Jesus, of course, had human parents, a human birth, and even a death, but as “the Son of God” he existed without beginning (so also Heb. 1:1-3, 10) and will have no end of days (so also Heb. 1:11-12; 13:8). So my use of Hebrews 7:3 is fully in keeping with the immediate context in Hebrews 7 as well as the context of the whole book of Hebrews.
Rob Bowman on 07 May 2009 at 10:41 pm #
RB and Dr. G.,
The criticism that some advocates of the doctrine of the Trinity might adhere to the doctrine merely to retain their position in an orthodox church is unworthy of this forum and irrelevant to this thread. There are people with less than noble motives in every religion; their shallowness is irrelevant to the question of what the true doctrine is.
In my case, I seriously doubted the doctrine of the Trinity for some time and gave the matter careful, sincere thought and study, refusing to back away from the difficult questions and challenges to that doctrine because I only wanted to know the truth. That is *still* my attitude. I adhere to the Trinity because I am convinced it is true and for no other reason.
RB on 08 May 2009 at 7:59 pm #
Rob,
First thanks for the reply.
While i am somewhat impressed with your opening, i stop at the premise that Melchizede could not have been a Priest. For if he was not as you presuppose then we would need to explain the actions of Abram. Also, in this explaination we need to address why Abram thought that he would need to give tribute to one who was not or could not have been a Priest, then you need to explain how it is that some many century’s later, God inspired the author of the Psalms verse to again make mention the he was a Priest. See you have spun a web that needs attention.
Should we further compound your statement, then we need to inquire to God the Almighty why it is that He would inspire men to write that Melchizedek was a Priest and that His Son would be a Preist after this Order, per-chance that there was no such Order as you ascribe to.
Should we contend that the writer of Hebrews is using this language in a poetic and typological sense then we need to clarify how it is that the verse in Psalms, referring to century’s before, is content in holding that he was, in fact, a Priest.?
Do you not see the contention and the conflict that arises when we try to twist the Scriptures to suit our own needs and desires? – Or – we can accept the obvious and that he[Melchizedek] was a Priest and not after an order that was ordinary, but rather truly God Ordained. To wit the Scriptures are clear and to wit they stand in a Unified fashion that not only credits the earlier writings concerning Melchizedek but also gives proper Authority to what is being represented in the Letter of Hebrews.
Which brings us to Heb 1:1-3, but i think that i will stop here momentarily to give you time to digest what you posted and consider what i have posted…
R.
Rob Bowman on 09 May 2009 at 8:40 am #
RB,
I didn’t say that Melchizedek wasn’t a priest. I was saying that he was not literally a priest “forever.” Melchizedek the priest in Abram’s day was a type of Christ, our heavenly, eternal high priest.
RB on 09 May 2009 at 9:55 am #
hrmph.
If he was a Priest – and he didn’t have a beginning nor end – then when did his Priesthood end[or begin] so that it was not – forever?
R.
RB on 09 May 2009 at 10:09 am #
You seem to be making an assumption based on very little evidence.
We DO know that-
1.He was a Priest
2.He was Honored as a Priest
3 He was Ordained by God and not man
4.He had an Order as becoming a Priestly right
5.He apparently was Eternal.
-or- you have an issue not grasping the simplicity of what facts we do have and accepting them as they are.
But, should we say that it was a poetic and typological language and really something that is not real then we have an issue with the Scriptures and possibly God is lie-ing to us-?
so which is it?
R.
Buzz on 09 May 2009 at 11:18 am #
Rob:
1) RB, it seems, does not need a lot of historical evicence; he is making a point of Logic: that if our priest is without ending or beginning … then how can you say his priesthood is not eternal?
“Always be prepared to give a Reason” for your belief. So what is yours here?
2) To be sure, I cannot quite tell if RB is consistently supporting the Trinity or not; or supporting some complex understanding of it that is not conventional? Would RB like to outline again his idea of the Trinity, clearly? It would be interesting; he has given some thought to it obviously; and has a logical mind.
3) By the way, does one insult the Bible, if one asserts that it is “simple”? And/or, must a Christian be simple? Are the facts of Christianity really all that simple? In which case, why do we need Theology or Biblical scholars? Or this forumn?
Buzz on 09 May 2009 at 12:17 pm #
Or maybe we could just say, that the Bible is a bit “poetic” … without implying that God is lying to us; just acknowledging that his ways are complex, and hard for us to understand, or make simple, at times?
RB on 09 May 2009 at 1:50 pm #
Tho not address to me:
1) RB, it seems, does not need a lot of historical evicence; he is making a point of Logic: that if our priest is without ending or beginning … then how can you say his priesthood is not eternal?
Ans: I agree. Yet if we are to contradict the Scriptures where they are clear that Melchizedek’s Priesthood is Eternal, by saying that it was not then we are not understanding the clarity.
“Always be prepared to give a Reason” for your belief. So what is yours here?
It is based on the reality of the Scriptures as they speak, not some old wives tale that scholars for century’s have made speculations about and today we call it “”gods revelation”" – ?
2) To be sure, I cannot quite tell if RB is consistently supporting the Trinity or not; or supporting some complex understanding of it that is not conventional? Would RB like to outline again his idea of the Trinity, clearly? It would be interesting; he has given some thought to it obviously; and has a logical mind.
No. for a surety I do not support the orthodoxical cathololistic paganistic implications of the trinity as put forth by the same.
3) By the way, does one insult the Bible, if one asserts that it is “simple”? And/or, must a Christian be simple? Are the facts of Christianity really all that simple? In which case, why do we need Theology or Biblical scholars? Or this forumn?
Yes the Bible is simple, it is the Spirit that brings it to Life, and no i do not think that it is an insult to say that it is simple. Someone ask me once about the “”grey” areas of the Bible, in reply i said there were no “”grey” areas, but things that we just do not understand and that by the Direction of God. Why can’t a Christian be simple, after all it is not us that Lives but Christ that Lives in us. To some degree i agree with you, in that we as the creation attempt to make christianity complex, especially when we state that one “MUST” believe a particual doctrine that we ourselves are not “SURE OF” in order to be Saved, show me where this is in the Bible? that i “MUST” believe in it to be saved and i will show you that you are wrong…-thence should i show you that you are wrong will you accept the simplicity of Salvation?..
Buzz on 09 May 2009 at 12:17 pm #
Or maybe we could just say, that the Bible is a bit “poetic” … without implying that God is lying to us; just acknowledging that his ways are complex, and hard for us to understand, or make simple, at times?
Should we ’say’ that the Bible is poetic, since i really do not spend alot of time reading poetry, when would i read the Bible? If it is only a typology of what poetry ‘could be’ then again when would i read it- since it is a typology based on poetic language? This would make it questionable as to its validity would it not?
Yes, God’s ways are complex to us, because we can not grasp His fullness, atleast not at the moment. Yet to say that Heb 7:1-3 is poetic, then that imply’s that Genesis is poetic as well, thus did it really happen? Did Jesus really die on the Cross? was He really buried and Rise again? —or is it Just “Poetic and Typological Language”? To say that this passage again is poetic when it describes and gives us a little more information about Melchizedek is just poetry in motion, then what about v14-17, esp v17- was God just being “poetic” in setting His Son as a Priest after “poetic fokelore” that never really existed?
R.
Rob Bowman on 09 May 2009 at 8:09 pm #
RB,
First, what religion are you? Please identify the religious group with which you affiliate or the theological system to which you adhere so that we may place your comments in context. At present, I really cannot figure out what it is you believe. (If you told me before, I have forgotten.) All I really know is that you’re against the Trinity.
Second, are you serious about claiming that Melchizedek himself is literally a priest forever? If so, over whom or in relation to whom is he a priest? And does this mean you think he literally never died? If so, what happened to him? Indeed, do you think he was literally never born? If so, what sort of being is he?
Third, the point at issue was whether Hebrews 7:3 teaches that Jesus, the Son of God, is eternal. You now seem to be arguing that Melchizedek is eternal but Jesus is not. Please tell me you are not adopting such an absurd position!
Fourth, please go read the discussion of Hebrews 7 in some good recent exegetical commentaries. Most of them take the view that I do and will confirm and explain in detail that interpretation.
RB on 09 May 2009 at 11:01 pm #
Rob,
First: i am a Christian, the same as you would ascribe Acts 11.26, 26:28, 1 Peter 4:16. As to an affiliation, are you attempting to “label” me to fit some predetermined criteria? Non-trinitarian, but i see no relevance in how this can put my comments into a “context” since they been straightforward, and Biblical. that is unless of course you can show me to be incorrect-?
Second: Yes i am, for that is what the Word states, does it not? or are you saying that the Record God gave us is incorrect? Plus, you have not demonstrated that His is NOT, have you? The Word does not say to whom or over whom he is a Priest does it, unless you can show through Scriptures that there is mention of the same. V3, makes this clear, yet can you provide evidence that deny’s what God has Recorded that denounces Gods Inspiriation to the Writer of the verse? I do not know-do you? Again v3. Umm good question, Being, well possibly had a human recognition, how could Abram know him? but again this is speculative thought, yet should he have been an angel i am sure that it would be recorded properly, don’t you think so? Could have possibly been a theophony, eh(?).
Third: Well i never said Jesus was not Eternal, did i? But i do not believe that Jesus existed before Jesus was Born. Should he have then the Gospel accounts are wrong-would you not agree? Also, should Jesus have existed before Jesus was Born through Mary, does this mean that Mary existed before Mary was Born as well?
Fourth: i already have and it appears you are just repeating what they say and not what the Spirit has given you inghts to, or did you miss something—–
*****
—–
RB on 09 May 2009 at 11:06 pm #
Now:
You are apparently reading Hebrews with a trinitarian mindset, In that Jesus ‘per-existed’. So much so that you need to justify how it is that Melchizedek came before Christ when you believe that Christ is before everything, thus somehow excluding the Gospel account of His Birth that came many many years later. You want to say that Jesus’ Priesthood could not have came after Melchizedek’s, even though it is clear that Christ’s Priesthood is -after- that of Melchizedek’s, as so Directed by God as set forth in the Letter of Hebrews. But the trnitarian mindset cannot contend with this unless they discount Hebrews 7:1-3. In that they then say that this passage is poetic and typological in nature, not really considering the consequences of this statement, nor in respect to the Inspiration of God for the Writer to pen as directed by the same that Jesus is -after- Melchizedek: v.11, 15, 17.
Most Bibles have a subtitle that gives a relative insight as to the passge, some say “Melchizedeks priesthood like Christs’ yet when you read the whole chapter you can see that this is incorrect, it is actually reverse. For this subtitle gives the impression that Christ came before Melchizedek, but the Scriptures have recorded just the opposite, an oversight by man maybe, or a forethought to implicate a trinitarian mindset?
Apparently, you are also under the influence that Melchizedeks Priesthood was not Eternal, but i believe that in the proper reading of v3, it makes it clear that Melchizedek’s Priesthood – ‘made like the Son of God’ – remains forever. We all know that the Son of God did not exist untill His Birth, or else there would be mention of an existing Son in the OT, but i have failed to find anything in the OT that brings to clarity that God has/had a Son prior to His[Jesus] Birth – have you?
So Melchizedeks Priesthood was fashioned so that when Christ had finished the work he was meant to do, the Priesthoods would be similar, thus Melchizedeks remains forever, and after God ‘Appointed Chirst as a Priest’, he was Appointed -after- that of Melchizedeks.
This can be understood in v11-17, [the indestructable life- He IS RISEN!!] Now should Jesus be Eternally living v25, then there is clarity in that His Priesthood does not end, and since Melchizedeks Order is Eternal v15, then we can see how Christs and Melchizedeks are similar in Eternality, and there is an existing parallel, since neither are now dead v3 & v25, taking into account v23 & 24 by way of death, and since you have been so gracious to point out the there is no geneaology of Melchizedek and v3 states why, then the Order of Melchizedek never ended, bringing us again to v15 ‘the likeness of Melchizedek’ – now tell me the Scriptures are wrong and this is just poetic typology again, please…
R.
cheryl u on 09 May 2009 at 11:38 pm #
RB,
Can you please tell me how you explain these verses if you don’t believe that Jesus, God’s Son, existed before His birth:
John 1:1 ” In the beginning was the Word, and the Word was with God, and the Word was God.
Jhn 1:2 The same was in the beginning with God.
J0hn 1:3 All things were made by him; and without him was not any thing made that was made.
And John 1:14 And 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”
The next verses go on to make it plain that this “Word” being spoken of was Jesus.
Then there is Colossians 1:16 which says, speaking of the Son (Jesus):
“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:”
Rob Bowman on 09 May 2009 at 11:48 pm #
RB,
Your unwillingness to identify your specific religious or theological perspective demonstrates a lack of honesty in this exchange. You naturally find it easier to take pot-shots at the beliefs of others than to stake out a coherent position and defend it.
As Cheryl rightly points out, there are numerous biblical texts that teach that Jesus Christ preexisted before the universe. Your attempt to spin Hebrews 7:3 is irrelevant.
Jesus existed before he was conceived and born, because his conception and birth pertain to his human nature–his “flesh”–which he assumed in the Incarnation (John 1:14). Mary, of course, did not exist before her conception and birth, because she is only a human being. Jesus was much more than that–he was God in the flesh.
RB, if you refuse to be honest and forthright about your own beliefs, I will refuse to bother responding to your comments any further.
RB on 10 May 2009 at 12:44 am #
Sure, if you will answer this:
The trinity doctrine states that God is Father, Son and Holy Spirit, that would make all three, God.
Heres the question;
In Matthew 26:36-46, we see that Jesus is struggling with the will. Now if God is the Father AND the Son, then the Will of the Father would be the same as the Will of the Son since both are God, correct.?
But we can clearly read that it is not….Right.
R.
cheryl u on 10 May 2009 at 1:00 am #
RB,
What about the Scriptures I listed above? Specifically the John chapter one verses? You know,: “In the beginning was the Word, and the Word was with God, and the Word was God.” There it plainly speaks of the Word both being with God and being God. And remember, if you read the rest of the chapter, it makes it very plain that the Word was Jesus.
cheryl u on 10 May 2009 at 1:08 am #
RB,
You said, “Now if God is the Father AND the Son, then the Will of the Father would be the same as the Will of the Son since both are God, correct.?”
Would you please clarify something for me? I may be reading something into this comment that you didn’t intend at all. Are you saying here that you do not believe that Jesus, the Son, is actually God? You may have made this clear elsewhere, but I can’t remember if you have.
RB on 10 May 2009 at 1:37 pm #
Well rob, again i can see that you are wrong, So instead of answering my post, you hide behind a label. Instead of a dialogue where two “christians” discuss Biblical clarity and understanding, you would rather dismember Eph 4 by division by way of denominational stereotpyes.
I’m the Spirit that goes out knocking on doors inviting people to come to church and here how God loves them while you sit in your office writing blogs with information that you copied and slightly re-wrote that is far from the truth…
i’m the Spirit that goes out to visit the elderly and the widows if only to share in their remorse and sorrow while you sit at home hoping someone will visit them….
i’m the Spirit that you see standing on the street corner telling people to repent and sharing the Gospel openly while you wait on God to send someone your way…
i’m the Spirit that is sitting in the booth behind you shairing Christ with someone while you sit there eating and listening in thinking how foolish i am…
i’m the Spirit that goes to gay rally’s not to protest and slander them but to be subtle in passing out flyers created on a home laptop while you and others stand in the pulpit and sit at home and talk with your fiends condeming them but do not go out and tell them that they can recieve Redeemtion…
i’m the Spirit that walks the neighborhood asking God to allow His Spirit to lead me to that one who may be contemplating suicide while you sit at home and ask God why it is that the world is in such chaos…
i’m the Spirit that sits in the back and listens to other preachers and wonders why they are telling people to give their life to God and be a witness for Him, yet do not do as they preach…
Honesty, Honesty is what i have been sending you but somehow it eludes you, the same way that Melchizedeks Eternal Priesthood does, doesn’t it?………God still Loves you, Rob.
But i could be wrong about you, eh(?)
R.
cheryl u on 10 May 2009 at 3:15 pm #
Since it is obvious that RB is not going to answer my questions, I went back and did a bunch of reading of the older comments. For any one else that is confused, has forgotten or maybe never read through this whole long thread, RB does not believe that Jesus is God and he does not belieive that the John 1 Scripture I asked about shows that he is.
cheryl u on 10 May 2009 at 4:14 pm #
RB,
I apologize if you have answered this question elsewhere. If you did I missed it.
I quoted Colossians 1:16 above. It says: “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:”
The context of this verse makes it very plain that the one being spoken of is Jesus.
Now we all know that in Genesis it says that it is God that created the heavens and the earth.
So, if in Colossians Paul says that all things were created by Jesus, how could He not be God when we know that God is the one that did the creating?
Rob Bowman on 10 May 2009 at 5:12 pm #
RB,
You are a hypocrite. You have no problem referring to those who hold my view as “trinitarians” but you criticize me when I ask you to identify what specific form of Christian belief you hold. The rest of your post attempts to draw self-serving contrasts between you and me despite the fact that you obviously don’t know enough about me to describe me as you do.
Please do not post again on this thread. Your participation is no longer welcome.
RB on 10 May 2009 at 8:10 pm #
RB on 09 May 2009 at 11:01 pm #
Rob,
First: i am a Christian, the same as you would ascribe Acts 11.26, 26:28, 1 Peter 4:16. As to an affiliation, are you attempting to “label” me to fit some predetermined criteria? Non-trinitarian, but i see no relevance in how this can put my comments into a “context” since they been straightforward, and Biblical. that is unless of course you can show me to be incorrect-?
***********
see you missed it again:
Non-trinitarian.
thanks cheryl – http://www.heaven.net.nz/writings/trinity.htm
Back to you rob: we are all hypocrites, thanks for allowing me and the others reading to see firsthand that you are still confused..[even cheryl caught that]
R.
BUZZ on 11 May 2009 at 9:20 am #
Rob Bowman:
I’d like “RB” to continue if possible. I think he’s 1) identified himself as a Christian non-trinitarian. And 2) he seems pretty good at giving excellent reasons, logic and scripture, for his faith.
So could you re-admit “RB” to the discussion and fellowship … in the tradition of Christian charity and tolerance? And intellectual challenge?
To Cheryl: to try to prove that Jesus was there at the beginning, you cite for example: “In the beginning was the word.” But after all, it does not clearly identify the “word” as Jesus. You say that this is clear in the context of the rest of the section … but do not show evidence. Nor in fact is that clear to many of the rest of us.
Likewise, Col. 1:16.
Actually therefore, I think, there seems is a pretty good case in support of RB and/o non-trinitarian claims.
And therefore, I believe firmly that he should be allowed to speak; and hope that you both, will not silence him.
BUZZ on 11 May 2009 at 9:54 am #
Cheryl:
For example, look at Col. 1:16, which you cited as an example of Jesus being included with God, from the beginning: “He is the image of the invisible God, the first born of all creation. For by him all things were created.”
But let’s learn to read our Bibles, their language, a little better. Here in fact, first of all, note the ambiguity of the pronoun, by “him”; 1) note the uncertainty of its “referent,” as they say.
That is to say, who is “Him” here? It could be a) Jesus; but also could be b) God.
So, confirming RB’s anti-trinitarian leanings, this sentence does not clearly identify Jesus as being there, at the beginning.
2) Nor for that matter, does it identify as being any more than the “image” of God; as are we all.
In fact Cheryl, if we learn to look closer at our Bibles, and especially the ambiguity of their language, we will find they are far, far more complex and less dogmatic, than we thought.
Specifically, I submit, we could go through dozens of such examples, and find that the Bible systematically allows for a non-trinitarian reading … in each and every one.
Though I myself do not have the time to do this, I personally am greatful for RB for taking the time.
Kara Kittle on 11 May 2009 at 10:38 am #
Some words of importance
The Hebrew word for God in Genesis 1 is Elohim…and we all know any word ending in “im” do indicate plurality.
Adonai means Lord, and we see it applied by both David and Abraham. Paul says Enoch prophesied of these things saying I saw the Lord’s returning with ten thousands thousands of His saints.
Baruch et Adonai…blessed be the name of the Lord.
Shema Y’Israel Adonai eloheinu Adonai echad…Hear Oh Israel, the Lord God the Lord is one…
David who was faithful to follow that said “I saw the Lord at the right hand of my Lord”
Abraham bowed down and called the three men at his tent door and called them Adonai.
The Bible indicates Adonai as being someone who is coming back, someone who sits at the right hand of God and someone who makes physical appearances. Isaiah said he saw the Lord high and lifted up.
If we say Adonai is merely a word to indicated titleship, then the name Ba’al which also means master could just as easily apply. But we know Ba’al is also the name of a god worshipped by semites. And it is not the same god as Yaweh. Therefore Adonai is a word meaning Lord, opposite of the understood name Ba’al and Adonai was physically witnessed by Abraham, David, Enoch, Moses, Elijah and Isaiah.
If you don’t accept the Jewish imagery (which is real by the way) then you won’t get a clear view of what Paul was talking about. Paul referred back to Enoch…the seventh from Adam. He saw Adonai’s returning with ten thousands thousands…returning? You have to go away to return.
cheryl u on 11 May 2009 at 11:11 am #
“BUZZ”,
We know from many former posts over the last months (am I not correct?) that you find the Bible to be so ambigous about anything and everything that to even try to come to some concrete conclusion about what it means in a conversation with you often seems to be an exercise in complete fulitily. So I don’t think I will even try this time.
And if by chance I am not correct in what I said, surely you are his twin brother!!
BUZZ on 11 May 2009 at 12:16 pm #
Cheryl & RB & Robert:
Doesn’t the very endlessness of these discussions – and the presentation of good arguments on both sides, in case after case, in hundreds of cases – suggest to you that the Bible itself, is just not as firmly in favor of some doctrines like the Trinity, as our churches insisted? That in fact, the Bible itself is … even deliberately ambiguous about, entertains two opinions, about many issues?
Don’t just take my word for it; look now at RB’s suggestions – which are good. Consider the ambiguity of the language, or the possible other meaning, of all your last examples. Then multiply this by a thousand. And then you should begin to suspect that the Bible itself is deliberately ambiguous, on many issues. And that the Bible itself – probably deliberately – is by far not firm at all, at many things they told you in church.
No matter how many examples we look at here, one after another, counter-examples and objections will be found to each one; all too consistently. Suggesting finally that the Bible itself is intended to be at best ambiguous; open to many different things. (Or even in the case of RB and the Trinity … the Bible is actually intended to go against much of what you heard in church).
Which leads us finally to what? To endless frustration? Or to … a God, a Theology, that is far, far less dogmatic and fixed, than our everyday preachers have lead us to believe. To a God that is not adequately described by everyday, unequivocal sermons.
In fact, it is this very insight, that is the first step in part, in moving past what we learned in church … to real “Theology.”
And I suggest that you keep pursing THIS sense of God and the Bible; which will lead you to real Theology. And finally, to the one who will say to you, “I am the one you seek.”
Since we are endlessly “seeking” him, in this model? (Note the ambiguity, the double meaning, of even our very last quote).
cheryl u on 11 May 2009 at 12:40 pm #
Buzz,
2 Ti 3:16 “All scripture [is] given by inspiration of God, and [is] profitable for doctrine, for reproof, for correction, for instruction in righteousness:
2Ti 3:17 That the man of God may be perfect, throughly furnished unto all good works.”
I Ti 4:16 “Take heed unto thyself, and unto the doctrine; continue in them: for in doing this thou shalt both save thyself, and them that hear thee.”
John 1:13 “Howbeit when he, the Spirit of truth, is come, he will guide you into all truth: for he shall not speak of himself; but whatsoever he shall hear, [that] shall he speak: and he will shew you things to come. ”
Sorry, but I don’t believe that God meant for us to see Him and His Word as ambigous, with multiple meanings that can never be pinned down.
mbaker on 11 May 2009 at 12:40 pm #
Dr. G, alias BUZZ,
I know writing styles and yours is the same as Dr. G.’s, You have apparently morphed into BUZZ. Is that like in a fly or bee, or in off? And so, at least in that ambiguous sense your last quote makes sense:
“Since we are endlessly “seeking” him, (BUZZ or Dr. G.) in this model? (Note the ambiguity, the double meaning, of even our very last quote).”
Well noted. And in an unequivocal way, which is one of G’s favorite BUZZ words too.
Some of us are on to you.
jbarg on 11 May 2009 at 10:07 pm #
The Lord Jesus Christ
is
Father , Son and Holy Ghost
God bless you all in Jesus name
JJ on 12 May 2009 at 8:21 am #
Cheryl:
Maybe you’d like to read Lisa’s new Guide on this blog; on “Ten Questions” to ask as you read your Bible. Reading the Bible is not as easy or simple as many might think.
Lisa recommends that when you read the Bible, for example, you should keep in mind many different possible theologies, that would give any given passage a slightly different meaning.
No doubt, God wants us to know him through scripture. But the question is: what finally is God like, when we do get to know him? Perhaps he is very multi-dimensional.
I feel that the perpectual quest for a very simple view of God, is an insult to God; to his complexity.
Bluedart on 13 May 2009 at 11:13 am #
Mr.Bowman,
I noticed how quickly you ask RB to refrain, yet i see nothing in these post that support your position as to the Priesthood of Melchizedk other than to critique RB.
Please Mr.Bowman, for those of us who read more than post, please support your position by postings a rebuttal as to why you seem to think that RB is incorrect in his Scriptural rendering and why you are correct.
Kara Kittle on 13 May 2009 at 1:25 pm #
Bluedart,
One thing I have noticed here is some authors make inflammatory doctrinal statements then coil up when someone responds back, as though the authors are the only ones allowed to be prejudiced but not allowed to have anything said back to them.
I have noticed they like to bait also, waiting for the unsuspecting person to wander across their blog post and comment.
Rob Bowman on 13 May 2009 at 3:30 pm #
Bluedart,
Please see my post #109, where I explained the basis for my view concerning Melchizedek.
RB’s original point was that I had supposedly misinterpreted Hebrews 7:3. According to RB, this verse cannot be used to support the conclusion that Jesus Christ is eternal. I defended my claim not only by explaining Hebrews 7:3 in context but pointing out that several other passages in Hebrews teach the same thing. He made no attempt to answer these arguments.
The reason I asked RB not to continue posting in this thread is that he refused to answer a simple and germane question as to his own religious beliefs. He was happy to attack the doctrine of the Trinity but not prepared to explain his own position and put it in some theological or religious context. His continuing to repeat the same objections while refusing to be as open about his views as I am about mine serves no constructive purpose in a supposed discussion or dialogue.
Bluedart on 13 May 2009 at 7:02 pm #
In all due respect Mr.Bowman, you really did not answer my question. For the sake of redundancy and repitition i will repeat my question which was not that i wanted you to dish RB, but:
Please Mr.Bowman, for those of us who read more than post, please support your position by posting a rebuttal as to why you seem to think that RB is incorrect in his Scriptural rendering and why you are correct concerning Melchizedek.
Rob Bowman on 14 May 2009 at 12:20 am #
Bluedart,
If you really “read more than post,” then please read my response to you again. I specifically pointed you to post #109, in which I explained why I hold to the view that I do concerning Melchizedek in Hebrews 7:3. That is where you will find why I think I am correct and RB is incorrect. So I did answer your question.
Rob Bowman on 14 May 2009 at 12:25 am #
RB,
I know you are non-Trinitarian. This does not answer the question. Unitarians, Jehovah’s Witnesses, Mormons, Christian Scientists, Armstrongites, and many other religious groups are non-Trinitarian. I want to know to which *specific* religious group and/or theological system you attach yourself. Give us a designation that we will all recognize as referring to a specific religious group or doctrinal position. This isn’t an unreasonable request. Only someone who has something to hide would refuse.
Bluedart on 14 May 2009 at 7:37 am #
Mr.Bowman,
Drawing your attention to your post #109, you state: “The author is not saying that Melchizedek literally had no parents, no birth or death, and is still a priest. He is using a Jewish method of typology to explain Psalm 110:4, a key verse in the author’s argument, which states that the Messiah would be a priest “after the order of Melchizedek.”” I would like to read your reasoning why you disagree with the Bible, if the Bible states that he was a Priset, why do you say that he was not?
Because then you state, “There was no literal priestly order or succession; the language is used poetically and typologically in Psalm 110:4.”. You give me, and I would think others as well, the impression that you don’t agree with what the Bible states concerning the Priesthood of Melchizedek.
Gen 14:18: And Melchizedek king of Salem brought forth bread and wine: and he was the priest of the most high God.
Rob Bowman on 14 May 2009 at 9:22 am #
Bluedart,
You made the same mistake in reading my post that RB did. I already corrected that mistake in post #112. For your convenience, I will repeat it here:
“I didn’t say that Melchizedek wasn’t a priest. I was saying that he was not literally a priest ‘forever.’ Melchizedek the priest in Abram’s day was a type of Christ, our heavenly, eternal high priest.”
Please do not post any more on this thread until you have actually read my posts and made sure you are not criticizing something I’m not saying (Prov. 18:13).
Joe on 14 May 2009 at 9:51 am #
Rob Bowman:
Surely RB doesn’t need to present credentials that he’s a member of any particular church, to be heard here? He’s said he is a non-trinitarian Christian. That should be enough.
And he seems in fact, to vociferously defend Christianity; it seems his claim to be a Christian, is sincere.
Could you therefore officially invite him back into the conversation? In the interest of Christian Charity, and intellectual challenge?
No doubt, it is very disturbing to see a good, strong, multifacted and well-exampled, logically-argued case made here by RB, that the BIble itself does not support the Trinity. Yet to be sure, we should not be afraid of seeing many fundamental beliefs questioned, in a theology blog.
cheryl u on 14 May 2009 at 10:09 am #
RB does not only not support the trinity. He does not believe that Jesus is God. Seems to me that is getting a bit far afield of orthodox Christian belief.
Dave Z on 14 May 2009 at 10:12 am #
Joe, BUZZ, Dr. G,
As you have also refused to answer questions concerning your background, it is no surprise that you jump to RB’s defence. The refusal to answer questions just raises more questions.
Rob Bowman on 14 May 2009 at 10:22 am #
Joe,
This is silly. There are all kinds of non-Trinitarian Christians with wildly differing theologies. We can’t understand the context of RB’s criticisms of the Trinity unless we know what theology he favors in its place. I am not asking him for “credentials,” and you know it.
As for RB presenting a strong, logically-argued case against the Trinity, I’m sorry, but his arguments are anything but. If you sincerely want to refute the doctrine of the Trinity, I have helpfully set out what you need to do here:
http://www.religiousresearcher.org/blog/?p=179
Joe on 14 May 2009 at 10:39 am #
Rob Bowman et alia.:
Of course we do not need “credentials” to be on this blog; but neither do we need even, evidence of belonging to any well-established tradition or church.
No doubt it would be helpful to know any theological context of many of RB’s non-trinitarian remarks. But what if he is say, Non-Denominational? Or a scholar? Non-affiliated? Or just an individual with his own ideas about God? In which case, insisting on hearing about some recognized affiliation, would even appear superficially to be rejecting him for being an individual, with his own ideas.
Of course you were just looking for a context for his remarks? But if there is no standard one, we should accept that.
What is RB’s religion (or even mine?). To be sure, as Cheryl notes, perhaps RB does not even emphasize Jesus; more, God. But what the heck; he could be from any religion at all; what counts in scholarly Theology, is the cogency of his reasoning.
Which I still insist, is actually pretty good (mostly). RB is very strong on logic and semantics, I’d say. When he maintains his temper.
As for my own religion? I’ve said I am Christian; but non-denominational.
I might add, I value real, scholarly theology, and reason and logic, as part of my sense of Christianity. “Always be prepared to give a reason for your faith.”
Bluedart on 14 May 2009 at 10:51 am #
ok, Mr.Bowman,
Well i had something else typed in to reply to you, but i will just concede.
But your arguement(statement) lacks Biblical support.
Thanks for your time.
Bluedart on 14 May 2009 at 11:05 am #
On second thought, I have asked you twice to provide me with evidence or support as to why you consider the opposite of the Biblical view concerning Melchizedeks Priesthood, and you have failed to do so other than to repeat yourself.
So how about this:
Why do you believe that Melchizedeks Priesthood is not eternal and can you provide Biblcal evidence that state that it was not? If you believe that this passage/verse is just poetic and typological, what other passages/verses do believe the same about(perhaps John 3:16)?
Maybe you should refrain from posting until you can acquire a more congenial attitude and one that promotes scholarly discourse among brothers and sisters.
Thanks again.
Rob Bowman on 14 May 2009 at 11:14 am #
Joe,
If RB had said, “I’m not part of any specific group of Christians; I don’t attend any church; I don’t subscribe to any specific theological system; these are just my own ideas,” that would have been an acceptable answer.
Saying you are “non-denominational” may or may not be accurate, let alone informative. Calvary Chapels, Churches of Christ, Jehovah’s Witnesses, and Mormons all claim to be non-denominational. Yet these names (that’s what a denomination is–it’s a name) are recognized designations of specific religious groups, and knowing which of these a person is would obviously be helpful in putting their statements in context.
If you or RB is a “Lone Ranger” Christian, not part of any specific fellowship or group of Christians, not assembling with other believers and working together with them to do the work of the ministry, then that would be a problem. It would indicate that your theological opinions are not rooted in a community of believers who are faithfully functioning as the body of Christ (the church). I think it’s fair to bring this up, because if RB, for example, is the only one who holds to RB’s theology (and that’s entirely possible!), then it is not likely to be a sound theology. Jesus told us that he would have a people, a church, a group of disciples, who would make disciples of all nations, who would gather together in his name (Matt. 16:18; 18:20; 28:18-20). If you’re going to say that no form of Trinitarian Christianity is this church, I think you have a responsibility to tell us who is.
Rob Bowman on 14 May 2009 at 11:35 am #
Bluedart,
How about an acknowledgment that you had failed to read carefully what I had already posted, and that you had misunderstood me?
Hebrews 7:3 states that in Genesis Melchizedek “was made LIKE the Son of God.” The Greek word here _aphomoiomenos_ is a passive verb form meaning that something else made Melchizedek like God’s Son. Along with most biblical scholars, I understand this to mean that the description of Melchizedek in Genesis 14, which omits any mention of his father or mother, birth or death, or any genealogy, made Melchizedek a type of the Son of God, who as the divine Son literally is eternal. Hebrews 7:16 states that Jesus is a priest “according to the LIKENESS [Greek _homoioteta_, "likeness," "similarity"] of Melchizedek. Again, in context this means that Melchizedek is the type and Christ is the antitype. These are explicit verbal indications in Hebrews 7 that Melchizedek was not literally an eternal being, but that he was a type of the Son of God, who literally is eternal (Heb. 1:2-3, 10-12; 13:8).
When Hebrews compares Jesus to Melchizedek, he quotes from Psalm 110, which is poetry. (I trust you will agree.) Psalm 110 is a messianic Psalm, in which King David (the original Jewish king in Jerusalem) is compared to Melchizedek (the non-Jewish king in Jerusalem in Abraham’s day), and in which David prefigures Jesus. David was not literally a priest; there is no account of him being ordained as a priest, no statement indicating that he actually held a priestly office. Nor is there any record of David ordaining anyone to be a priest after him. He is figuratively called a priest in Psalm 110:4 because, like Melchizedek of centuries past, he ruled in Jerusalem and led God’s people in some “priestly” ways, even though he was not officially a priest.
Cards on the table, please. Do you really think Melchizedek is a priest, right now, somewhere? Then please tell me where and what he is doing in that official capacity. And please explain what the significance of this idea is in the context of your own religious belief system. Is Melchizedek’s priesthood perhaps something your religion professes to perpetuate? If so, what religion is that?
jbarg on 14 May 2009 at 12:15 pm #
Isaiah 43:11
I, even,I am the LORD; and beside me there is no saviour
John 14:18
I will not leave you comfortless: I will come to you
Colossians 1:27b
Christ in you,the hope of glory
2 Peter 3:18
But grow in grace and in the knowledge of our Lord and Saviour Jesus Christ. To him be glory both now and for ever Amen
the name of the Father,Son and Holy Spirit is Jesus Christ
John C.T. on 14 May 2009 at 1:35 pm #
RB, Buzz, Bluedart, the point of the lede and this thread was not whether the doctrine of the trinity is true. The point is, assuming the doctrine is true, does one need to believe it to be saved (or, can one fail to believe in the truth of an important doctrine that defines the nature and character of Christ and still be saved).
There is, in fact, a Trinity post, and I would invite and encourage you to take the discussion about the validity of the trinity doctrine to that thread, and then this thread can return to a focus on how much correct belief is enough.
Regards,
John
Kara Kittle on 14 May 2009 at 1:38 pm #
I don’t know, but Melchi-zedeck..as he is really called was a man…but the Bible states that Jesus is a priest after the Order of Melch-zedeck.
That is kind of like saying a friar is a Dominican, Augustine, Jesuit, or whatever type of priest he is. It says nowhere in the Bible that Melchi-zedeck was vicarious…meaning he fleshly embodies the representation of Christ living through him.
Jesus is called a priest after the ORDER of…so it is the office that carries the definition. Much like that movie Murder at 1600, Alan Alda says to Wesley Snipes, “The office of president is greater than the man”. (it was that movie wasn’t it?)
How does one become a Melchi-zedeckian priest?
EricW on 14 May 2009 at 2:01 pm #
How does one become a Melchi-zedeckian priest?
Maybe ask Mitt Romney?
Kara Kittle on 14 May 2009 at 2:17 pm #
EricW
ROFL….
RB on 14 May 2009 at 9:50 pm #
John CT,
I agree.
Yet can anyone give me a verse or passage that clearly defines Jesus in the OT?
Can anyone produce or provide evidence that Jesus is saying something or recorded to have said something, or given any commands-at all in the OT?
Can anyone show undeniable evidence or validatable proof in the OT that Jesus did in fact exist prior to His Birth in the NT?
***
In direct correlation to the topic, i do not believe that any man made creed can justify what the Scriptures are clearly speaking when it comes to Salvation, and to say that we must agree to a man made creed is in direct violation of the Scriptures.
***
Rob, sorry that you seem to think that a denomination is vital to one being a Christian, i believe that this was what Paul was so heavily against in Eph. seems that the years have taught us nothing other than to build higher and thicker walls. No i am not any of those that you have listed and for the sake of “traditional orthodoxy” no i believe that it is a barrier setter, again Eph. What is even sadder still is that those who seem the most learned are those who are the most stoic in kepping those barriers strong and built up.
I am a Non-trinitarian Christian, why does this seem to be a problem? I go a church quite regularly and am very active within the Body in the ministry of evengelism, but NO i do not proport to uphold the trinity as you do and make it a confessional before one can receive Christ as their Personal Lord and Savior, nor do i make them sign a confessional that they believe such prior to understanding that they are a sinner in need of a Savior, and no i say nothing in regards to Jesus being God nor do i teach this.
Basically it is because i find nothing that is beyond any undeniable evidence within the Scriptures that support this mythology, yet we as the created have various interpretations of this verse and that.
In so much that you can not even answer why Jesus’s will was different that the Father’s yet you strongly uphold that Jesus is God and the Father is God and since God is both then there would be no distinction in the Wills. But no one has an answer other than to go back over the basics with thier copied interpretations of what another 200(+/-) year old commentator has said.
So have we becomew so dumb in the spirit that we can only repeat what another has said?
R.
cheryl u on 14 May 2009 at 10:50 pm #
RB,
Please, how can you continue to say that John 1 doesn’t show that Jesus is God? Note:
verse 1 “In the beginning was the Word, and the Word was with God, and the Word was God.”–the Word was God.
verse 14 “And the Word became flesh, and dwelt among us, and we saw His glory, glory as of the only begotten from the Father, full of grace and truth. “–that Word, God, became flesh and dwelt among us.
verse 15 “John *testified about Him and cried out, saying, “This was He of whom I said, ‘He who comes after me has a higher rank than I, for He existed before me.”
verse 29 and 30 “The next day he *saw Jesus coming to him and *said, “Behold, the Lamb of God who takes away the sin of the world! “This is He on behalf of whom I said, ‘After me comes a Man who has a higher rank than I, for He existed before me.”–he sees Jesus coming and says He is the lamb of God and says He is the one he referred to when he spoke of One higher than he who existed before he did.
Note the progression:
1. The Word was God
2. The Word became flesh and dwelt among us.
3. John testified about Him–the Word that was God become flesh, not the Father. For he then goes on to say that–
4. He saw Jesus coming towards Him and He was the one that he spoke of saying that He had a higher rank because He was before Him.
If you follow John’s progression of thought here, I do not see how it is possible to come to any other conclusion than that John was saying that Jesus was the Word that was at the beginning and that Word was God.
Conclusion–John 1 shows that the apostle clearly taught that Jesus was God.
Rob Bowman on 14 May 2009 at 10:55 pm #
RB,
If the NT says that Jesus existed before all things, that all things came into being through him, that he laid the foundation of the earth and that the heavens are the works of his hands; why do we need to find such statements in the OT specifically about Jesus for you to believe it?
I did *not* say that a denomination was vital to being a Christian. That’s just a ridiculous twisting of what I said. You say that you go to a church quite regularly; if I wanted to find this church, how would I do so? Do they just call themselves “non-Trinitarian Christians”? I doubt it. Why are you still refusing to answer this simple question?
Your claim that I cannot answer your question about Jesus’ and the Father’s wills is false. If you had made any effort to understand orthodox theology before criticizing it (Prov. 18:13), which obviously you have not, you would know the answer: Jesus was both God and man, and as a man Jesus had a human will that was naturally desirous of avoiding the crucifixion.
I have been quite patient with you throughout these comments, asking you repeatedly to identify your specific religious affiliation, answering your questions, responding to your criticisms. You have repeatedly refused to answer my question. That is not honest participation in dialogue. Now I will exercise my right as the author of the post. Answer my question or expect any future comment of yours on this thread to be deleted.
cheryl u on 14 May 2009 at 11:32 pm #
RB,
Who do you believe that this child that will be born and this son that will be given are?
Isaiah 9:6-7 “For a child will be born to us, a son will be given to us; And the government will rest on His shoulders; And His name will be called Wonderful Counselor, Mighty God, Eternal Father, Prince of Peace. There will be no end to the increase of {His} government or of peace, On the throne of David and over his kingdom, To establish it and to uphold it with justice and righteousness From then on and forevermore. The zeal of the LORD of hosts will accomplish this.”
Notice one of His names is “Mighty God”.
This Scripture has always been understood to be speaking of Jesus–and He is here called the “Mighty God”. I know of no other child and son to be born that would fulfill those prophecies or that could carry those names. Do you? If so who?
cheryl u on 14 May 2009 at 11:55 pm #
And RB, Jesus also made this statement in John 8:58, “I tell you the truth,” Jesus answered, “before Abraham was born, I am!”
If He didn’t exist before His birth on this earth, He obviously was an out and out liar!
cheryl u on 15 May 2009 at 12:36 am #
RB,
John 17:5 “”Now, Father, glorify Me together with Yourself, with the glory which I had with You before the world was”
Again, Jesus says He existed before the world was and He had glory with the Father.
Sorry I am getting so many comments here in a row. I have just been posting verses as I have come across them.
John C.T. on 15 May 2009 at 5:43 am #
RB, please move your posting over to the trinity thread, and invite others to follow you. Debating the trinity is off topic here. Those who want to respond to RB, please do your response on that thread, and just leave a one-liner here inviting others to join you there. I’m interested in what people have to say about the actual topic of this thread, and people have stopped posting on that topic because of the hijacking.
Regards,
John
cheryl u on 15 May 2009 at 9:02 am #
RB,
I find it interesting that the link you keep referring me to doesn’t even agree with some of what you are saying !
Kara Kittle on 15 May 2009 at 9:21 am #
RB,
I can…
David said “Adonai said unto my Adonai sit thou on my right hand until I make thy enemies thy footstool…
Isaiah said “Unto us a child is born, unto us a son is given and he shall be called Wonderful, Counselor, the Mighty God, the Everlasting Father, the Prince of Peace and the government shall be upon his shoulders and of his kingdom there shall be no end.”
And thou shalt call his name Emmanuel meaning God with us.
Every knee shall bow and every tongue shall confess that Jesus Christ is Lord to glory of God the Father.
Can you say then Adonai will speak to an angel to invite him to sit on God’s right hand?
Then consider this verse…”to which of any of the angels did He say at any time, thou are my begotten son, this day have I begotten thee?”
There were no angels who fit this description or purpose. There were no other people who qualified. There was only one man who did, that was Yashua Ha Mashiach. Jesus the Anointed One. The man whose name is the Branch born out of the line and root of Jesse.
cheryl u on 15 May 2009 at 9:52 am #
John CT,
Which trinity thread are you referrng to? There seems to be several. And actually RB’s debate goes way beyond anything regarding belief in the trinity since he has repeatedly stated that he does not believe that Jesus is God or that he existed before his birth on this earth. I don’t even know what thread to take such a discussion too–but it certanly seems to be a very vital one!
Rob Bowman on 15 May 2009 at 9:59 am #
All,
Per my express warning to RB, I have deleted his recent comments.
Kara Kittle on 15 May 2009 at 10:16 am #
Rob Bowman,
In answer to your blog title only.
No.
Like I said before I am Pentecostal and grew up with relatives on both sides of the argument. On each side there were those who loved the Lord, called on His name and repented and received Jesus in their hearts and was born again and filled with the Spirit. The only thing was their viewpoint on the nature of the Godhead. So no, it is not a requirement to being saved.
If you want to make it a requirement then no, you would be in error because Jesus said “Repent and believe the Gospel”. That was His teaching. John the Baptist said “Behold the lamb of God which takes away the sin of the world”. How? Through the message of repentance which Jesus just taught.
In answer to your blog title only…no.
Bluedart on 18 May 2009 at 11:12 am #
I agree with Kara, in that anyone who preaches or teaches anything contrary to Jesus Christ and Him Crucified, is guilty of a greater condemnation.
Bill on 24 May 2009 at 4:16 pm #
Cheryl #66:
But God had us all in mind, he “knew” us all, before we were born; therefore, Jesus existing before his birth is not unique, but is the common fate of all men; who are also by the way, all “sons of God.”
While then too, regarding other comments: where in the New Testament is Jesus referred to as the “Mighty God”? How do you know any such references in the OT refer thus, to Jesus?
Liana on 02 Aug 2009 at 3:30 am #
I have not read each and every post here, as they are extensive. Let me just say that I was raised first Oneness, and then Trinitarian. In my mind, the two have blended together, if such a thing is possible. I have witnessed God’s blessing, hand, and fruit/evidence of the spirit on BOTH sides. I believe the wonderful people I’ve known on both sides will be reconciled when we no longer see through a glass darkly.
That being said — I am a fan of Jason Dulle, and his Oneness apologetics. http://www.apostolic.net/biblicalstudies/jesusprayers3.htm. I have not encountered anyone who can so clearly express the real Oneness doctrine in which I was raised. After experiencing Trinitarian churches, I have spent much time in prayer, examining both sides. I believe both sides have a missing piece. God exists outside of time, matter, and space — and this is critical to understanding His nature. In fact, these dimensions are part of creation. We are all attempting to define Him by our OWN paradigm — from within these dimensions.
The whole question of the pre-existance of Christ, is something of a mute point. Of course Christ was pre-existant. The flaw in the question is the “pre.” If He is post-existant (somewhat tongue-in-cheek there) in His eternal, glorified state, then He is also necessarily pre-existant, because His existance outside of the incarnation is also outside of time. He simply is. And if He exists outside of time, He “always” exists outside of time, even when He simultaneously exists or operates within time. Once outside of time IS ALWAYS outside of time. Because… it’s OUTSIDE of time. It’s a paradox — to us. So, are all things created by Him and for Him? Yes. Did Christ walk in the garden with Adam and Eve? Yes. Was Christ with God in the beginning? Yes. WAS He God in the beginning? Yes. Did Christ look out over the tents of Jacob and express His love for them? Yes. Did Christ visit Abraham? Yes. Is He unipersonal? Yes. He is the logos made flesh. The Son of God, God the Son. A three-in-one, one-in-three loop. And we are a monotheism.
Was God alone (oneness) before He created us, or was He in fellowship with Himself (trinity) before He created us? It’s actually a flawed question. “Before” is our perspective — not His. Think on that for a while. Could God be unipersonal, AND exist in three “persons” from our perspective? Absolutely — if He is by nature omnipotent, omnicient, omnipresent, and outside of the universe He created, the exception BEING the incarnation itself. That is true whether you believe in the Son of God, or God the Son. So Eternal God, or Eternal God the Son still died on the cross. The same paradox exists in both views. God made flesh IS a paradox. But we ALL recognize He was fully human yet fully divine. In that, I believe by grace we are saved. And you all probably think I’m nuts about now.
Liana on 02 Aug 2009 at 10:06 am #
In other words, ALL of us are trying to explain the nature and existence of a non-linear God by our linear perspective. Therein lies the difficulty. He says He is, was, and is to come… for our benefit. The more accurate description is “I AM.”
Joe on 17 Aug 2009 at 11:46 am #
In support of RB vs. Rob Baldwin:
1) “Jesus” is never mentioned by name in the Old Testament.
2) “The Word” can mean all kinds of things; it can be in part a reference to scripture.
3) The many references in the Old Testament to a saving person in the line of David, can refer to many people: David himself; Solomon; or many other subsequent persons.
4) Likewise, all other parts of the Old Testament taken to refer specifically to Jesus, are found to be far less certain than previously thought.