The Narrow Path Ministries

Considering the interest in the threads on the Trinity, I thought some might like to read a book together and share thoughts as they read it. I am really enjoying it, and so far even if one remains trinitarian through it, there is much to consider in the topics discussed as to the dual nature of man, the First and Second Adam, and much more. I have been edified by it even as I await resolution of a few scriptures that remain in my mind -- I highly recommend buying the book (the Kindle Edition is only $1.99) if only for the Appendices (also available separately for free online) which, among other things, include great references of relevant proof-texts.

One God & One Lord: Reconsidering the Cornerstone of the Christian Faith -- $29 (Kindle Edition is only $1.99)

"http://www.amazon.com/gp/product/B004FG ... UTF8&psc=1"

[user account removed]

Darin, I went directly to the "Biblical Unitarian" website and read several chapters of the book.

In ONE sense, I might be considered unitarian, in the sense that Jesus called His Father "the only real God." (John 17:3) and therefore I recognize the Father as "the only real God". But I can't believe that Jesus had no pre-existence. He clearly said, "Before Abraham was, I am." John 1:18 calls Jesus (in the pre-300 Greek manuscripts) "the only-begotten God". Clearly that is inconsistent with normal Unitarian teaching.

I'd bring up John 1:1 again, which affirms that the Logos was God in some sense. But I know that the author wiggles out of that one, but denying that the Logos was the son of God, the pre-incarnate Jesus. In one chapter, he indicates that Jesus was created. As I see it, the author is unwilling to accept second-century wisdom, or to take the Scriptures in a straight-forward manner, but simply tries to fit scripture into his Unitarian concepts through a lot of re-interpretation.

I am only on page 89 in iBooks (not sure what chapter that is) so I probably don't have a clear understanding of his thesis yet, but I do find it to be a tedious read.

The authors place such an emphasis on the comparison between the first adam with Jesus that they allow for no differences in the origin or the physical and spiritual make-up of the two. I agree with Paidon's assessment that their message seems to indicate that Jesus had no pre-existence before His birth because if He did then he certainly wouldn't be of the pattern of Adam (Romans 5:14). There are just too many verses against this train of thought.

The other difficulty I have with the book is the idea that Jesus could not truly be a man or die if He were also God. I could be wrong in my understanding, but I think a main characteristic of "man" is this body of flesh and blood that our immaterial soul/spirit inhabits. Since the Spirit of God can certainly take abode in us, I do not think it a stretch to believe the immaterial Spirit of the Word of God could become incarnate in a real body thus being fully God (immaterial) and fully man (material). In this manner, Jesus' body could experience death, though his Spirit await the resurrection 3 days later.

If by "God incarnate" we only mean that he had the Spirit abiding in Him (which is largely how I see it), then one could hardly see that as an eternally existing separate person. That Spirit would be the same Spirit that is the Father, no? The Father (not called that in OT) dwelt in the tabernacle or temple or was embodied (so to speak) as a pillar of fire etc. That was surely the Father. Now, that same Spirit dwells within us and possibly completely in Jesus. That doesn't sound very Trinitarian to modern ears, though I've read a number of Trinitarian works that would essentially hold that view (as I recall). I think the author here would share that view to a point.


Sent from my iPad using Tapatalk

You can say he wiggles out of certain texts, but all positions seem to do a lot of wiggling on this issue (or ignore certain texts). I suppose our presuppositions and bias determine whether it is legitimate wigglehood. I'm not done yet but I think you'll find he handles the I am passages.


Sent from my iPad using Tapatalk

Hey Jarrod, could the Father be sort of a class object and the Son an instance or subclass? What would the Spirit be?

I thought we could use a "palate cleanser."

Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

Hi Darin,

You wrote:

The Father (not called that in OT) dwelt in the tabernacle or temple or was embodied (so to speak) as a pillar of fire etc. That was surely the Father

You would not say, I think, that God was wholly in the temple, or in a pillar of fire would you? And if not, could God appear on earth as a man, and not be wholly contained in that man? And if so, could that man communicate through prayer with that part of God not wholly contained in the man?

I like it! Or perhaps the parent class is God and the Father, the Word, and the Spirit are all derived classes. Taking this further, the Word subclass could also be Polymorphic, subclassing Man as well Then each "Instance" would have a "roles" attribute that would be separate.

darinhouston wrote:Hey Jarrod, could the Father be sort of a class object and the Son an instance or subclass? What would the Spirit be?

I thought we could use a "palate cleanser."

Well, I see the Word as with God (separate) while also being God (eternal). The Word was the one that took on flesh, not the Father, so I would not see Him as the "same Spirit" as the Father. Honestly, I do not hold tightly the somewhat popular view of the Trinity, though I am happy to accept it as it makes quasi-sense in my mind. I just want to know God how He is, not how some doctrine tells me to believe. Rather than making Jesus out to be Man and not God in some sense, I would be more inclined to not see the Spirit as a separate individual.

darinhouston wrote:If by "God incarnate" we only mean that he had the Spirit abiding in Him (which is largely how I see it), then one could hardly see that as an eternally existing separate person. That Spirit would be the same Spirit that is the Father, no? The Father (not called that in OT) dwelt in the tabernacle or temple or was embodied (so to speak) as a pillar of fire etc. That was surely the Father. Now, that same Spirit dwells within us and possibly completely in Jesus. That doesn't sound very Trinitarian to modern ears, though I've read a number of Trinitarian works that would essentially hold that view (as I recall). I think the author here would share that view to a point.

I have wondered about the I am passages, along with Colossians and others... I am interested to see how he handles those.

darinhouston wrote:I'm not done yet but I think you'll find he handles the I am passages.

Homer, perhaps it's similar. God can be in more than one place at once. But we don't consider the pillar a separate person.

Jarrod, so why don't we say the Word is the second person of the trinity? I could respect that position better. If the word manifest as Jesus just like the Father manifest as the pillar, we would need to be consistent in how we treat the pillar and the man.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk