Jesus is God

[dizerner]

Where is the logical contradiction in having faith in yourself?!

[dizerner]

Do you consider yourself more in the Oneness understanding of the Godhead?

He can correct me if I'm wrong, but he seems to be a Modalist who denies all forms of kenosis.

[dwight92070]

Where is the logical contradiction in having faith in yourself?!

The most logical contradiction I see is that the Bible never talks about having faith in yourself. More to the point, the Bible never speaks of God having faith in Himself. We are using the Hebrews 11:1 definition of faith.

[dwight92070]

Good morning brother.

Dwight, do you consider yourself a trinitarian? If so, i think most trinitarians would call this sort of argumentation either out on the skinny branches or just plain not in the same tree.

I'll be honest with you. I have not kept up with the labels. I have always considered myself a trinitarian. Years ago, I had to look up the meaning of that to find out what the actual meaning of that was. Basically, the Trinity is One God in three persons, the Father, the Son, and the Holy Spirit. Each of the three are God, but the Father is not the Son or the Holy Spirit, the Son is not the Father or the Holy Spirit, and the Holy Spirit is not the Father or the Son.

I just now looked up Modalism and if the definition is correct, I am definitely not a Modalist.

I definitely believe that God has always existed as One God in three persons, as He is today. However, in the last year of two, I have come to agree with Steve Gregg - that in one sense, each of the three persons are distinct from each other; in another sense each IS the other. Isaiah called Jesus the Mighty God, the Everlasting Father. That is, the Son IS the Father. Paul said that the Lord (Jesus) IS the Holy Spirit. I also believe the Holy Spirit IS the Father. Yet, in another sense, they are distinct. I don't know if there's a label for that.

The kernel coming from Nicea that was further developed afterward did include, "very God, and very man" As far I can tell, these sorts of characterizations of the relationships within the trinity deny Jesus was a true man. Am I assuming too much? Do you consider yourself more in the Oneness understanding of the Godhead?

I just looked up Oneness and no, I am not Oneness or Jesus Only. I believe there is a distinction between the three persons, and at the same time, each is the other. I believe Jesus was a true man. I also believe He was and still is truly God.

Regarding kenosis, and I had to look that up again, I believe none of us know exactly what privileges or attributes Jesus gave up, or to what degree He gave them up, to become a man. But yes, I think I do LEAN toward the possibility that He gave up none of His attributes, power, knowledge, but MUCH of His privileges as God, in order to be a humble servant. I believe that before He became a man, He was called the Word, who was with God, and was God. I believe, as Steve does, that before He became a man, He was not called the Son of God. He took on that title, as Gabriel told Mary, when He was supernaturally conceived and born. The references to the Son of God in the Old Testament, I believe, are prophetic, as Steve does, not indicating that that title was used prior to His birth. Prior to His birth, He was called the Word. After His birth, He was called Jesus, the Son of God. I believe there is ONLY ONE piece of knowledge that He did not know, which He told us Himself - the time of His return. Without a doubt, He knows that NOW. Other than that, in Him dwells ALL the treasures of wisdom and knowledge. I believe He did not have all of that knowledge as a toddler or child. Luke 2:52 says that "Jesus kept increasing in wisdom and stature ..." We are not told when He actually "took on" ALL the treasures of wisdom and knowledge, but I believe He did while on earth.

"Does God have faith in God?" is a caricature. The son is not the father, so it is good and proper that the son of God would have faith in the one he called Father, though they be in perfect harmony as the one true God, however humbled that was in the incarnation.

I believe the Son IS the Father, so it is strange to suggest that God would have faith in God. If you believe that the Father is God and the Son is God, then why would you not believe that the Father IS the Son and the Son IS the Father? Jesus said, "He who has seen Me has seen the Father. I and the Father are One."

You said elsewhere, Jesus knows all things and saw all things. Sure after he finished his work that was so, but surely you know Jesus himself made explicit confirmation that while on earth, he "did not know" all things, but only the father.

As I said above, there is only ONE thing Jesus said that He did not know - the time of His return. We are not told why. In John 16:30 His disciples are speaking: "Now we know that YOU KNOW ALL THINGS, and have no need for anyone to question you; by this we believe that You came from God". This was BEFORE THE CROSS. Did Jesus CORRECT THEM AND TELL THEM THAT HE DIDN'T KNOW ALL THINGS? NO, He said "Do you now believe?"

I have heard some say that His disciples and the early Christians did not know that He was God in the flesh until after 100 years later or more. I disagree. The gospels themselves tell us otherwise. John 16:30 is just one piece of evidence that they knew Who He was before He was even crucified. Sure, after His crucifixion, they began to doubt again. But they knew before and after His resurrection.

[dwight92070]

Do you consider yourself more in the Oneness understanding of the Godhead?

He can correct me if I'm wrong, but he seems to be a Modalist who denies all forms of kenosis.

I am not a Modalist or Oneness. I believe that the only thing He gave up when He became a man was some of His privileges as God, in order to be a humble servant. Regarding kenosis, I am open to being shown otherwise -as I am with all my beliefs. I gave more detail a few posts back from this.

[jeremiah]

Hi Dwight,

Thanks for explaining all that. It fills a lot in and helps me understand what i didn't when i jumped into this late stage of the conversation. I see it differently, but also see what you're saying, and have no quarrel with it.

Have a blessed weekend brother.

[dwight92070]

Happy Father's Day to all you father's out there!

[darinhouston]

Hi Dwight,

Thanks for explaining all that. It fills a lot in and helps me understand what i didn't when i jumped into this late stage of the conversation. I see it differently, but also see what you're saying, and have no quarrel with it.

Have a blessed weekend brother.

I wouldn't quarrel with his believing it, but I simply can't understand it. I truly don't understand how someone can believe that Jesus just "is" the Father and yet deny they are Oneness of some sort. Whatever it is, it's not Trinitarian. But, no matter what "system" of belief it falls into, if it's true then whatever is true about the Father would have to be true also of Jesus. And I don't believe that can be demonstrated even superficially much less proven.

[dizerner]

We don’t agree on much but that is definitely a logical contradiction.

I’ve never seen the view before.

[jeremiah]

Hi Darin,

I wouldn't quarrel with his believing it, but I simply can't understand it. I truly don't understand how someone can believe that Jesus just "is" the Father and yet deny they are Oneness of some sort. Whatever it is, it's not Trinitarian. But, no matter what "system" of belief it falls into, if it's true then whatever is true about the Father would have to be true also of Jesus. And I don't believe that can be demonstrated even superficially much less proven.

I resonate. When I said I understand more than when i jumped in, I was referring to seeing now why Dwight see's no need for Jesus to have faith. I still think Jesus was a true man, and so demonstrated for all of us what it looks like to trust in our father in heaven in all things.

My response was summarized from a much longer explanation of my own punctuated movements to and fro in the past ten years on this subject. I tried to save the draft and when I came back to it, it was lost.

Even though the nature of God seems like it should be among the most important understandings to come to, i feel less and less compelled to nail down what all I believe about it. And since I have many more questions than answers, I figured it better to 'sit back down' a while and return to sorting out the muddled view I currently have.

There was a time years ago when I rejected trinitarian categories all together, but the more I read the NT scriptures, I found the lofty language of Jesus by the apostles to be inexplicably higher and wholly other than I had decided it was in my earlier rejection. Among 'orthodox' trinitarians, I'm sure I'd be seen as outside the gate, and that's fine, they're still my brothers and sisters.

Some of my biggest heroes are certainly die hard trinitarians(NT Wright & James White*), and I've listened to them for many years and so am sort of able to articulate the position. Admittedly, as I hear the explanations even come out of my mouth, or by others, often i'm either able to beautifully catch of glimpse of the truth of it, or it just plain sounds like nonsense at times.

The divinity of Jesus is not really that hard for me, what that implies, and/or how exactly we explain the fullness of that is still quite mysterious to me. My biggest difficulty comes with seeing the holy Spirit as a third person. My reading of the Hebrew scriptures was devastating to this view for me, and then in the NT, the absence, or to my eyes anyway, of such elevated language as we find of Jesus makes it at best problematic for me.

*I love James White and his ministry, but I'm no Calvanist. Besides the apostles and prophets, George MacDonald has been one of my favorites for many years now. Where he spoke of Jonathan Edwards' presentation of God, I can only agree and would add to the stack many of the notions of God and his Christ found in the Institutes. At the very end of his "Justice" chapter in "Unspoken Sermons" MacDonald says this of him:

...I love the one God seen in the face of Jesus Christ. From all copies of Jonathan Edwards’s por-trait of God, however faded by time, however softened by the use of less glaring pigments, I turn with loathing. Not such a God is he concerning whom was the message John heard from Jesus, that he is light, and in him is no darkness at all.