Bill Schlegel Videos

[Paidion]

Paidion, I think I understand the bases for pre-existence, generally, but as to this specific claim -- I'll ask again -- what scriptural basis do you have for that statement?

And I'll give the same reply.

He is the image of the invisible God, the firstborn of all creation. (Colossians 1:15 NAS95, RSV, NRSV, ASV, Darby, ESV, LO, YLT)

[commonsense]

Perhaps it is a niggling point, but the Bible nowhere speaks of us putting on a "new self"

Steve, I think you're right. It is a niggling point. In order to be a member of the body of Christ, you must become a "new man" having a new nature, new mind, new spirit, new heart, new self. It's all the same to me.

More to the point of this thread, I have welcomed anyone to critically address the thesis presented in my lectures on the topic addressed here. I don't think they can be refuted from scripture, but I am willing to hear the arguments.

To me, "This does not necessarily mean what it sounds like it is saying," is not a persuasive argument. I would like to hear the reasons that any passage should not be understood to be saying what it sounds like it is saying.

We know that God is not a man and humans are not God. Since Jesus was a man, He would not be God. Passages that suggest He is God must then mean something else.
The terms Father and Son don't tell you the nature of God. It tells you that Jesus is related to God. This is nothing new. If you let the Bible interpret the Bible, as many say, God had children in the Old Testament, sons and daughters. These people, who were human, refer to God as their Father and at times, as a Husband. They saw themselves related and united to God in some way.

God is much more than just a doctrine of a Trinity of Gods. Jesus didn't show us the scientific or mathematical mind of God. This is revealed through others. How truly great our God is, is unfathomable.

[darinhouston]

Perhaps it is a niggling point, but the Bible nowhere speaks of us putting on a "new self"

Steve, I think you're right. It is a niggling point. In order to be a member of the body of Christ, you must become a "new man" having a new nature, new mind, new spirit, new heart, new self. It's all the same to me.

At risk of being merely "argumentative," I think this has devotional value to split the niggling hair and at least contemplate this further. I do think it's worth considering the order of operations here. We don't become the new man by somehow obtaining the new "nature, mind, spirit, heart, etc." (self if you will). We obtain that "self" by putting on Christ. Or -- when we become connected to Christ and abide in Him, we GAIN that nature, mind spirit, heart, etc. and our "self" changes. Just commenting for further reflection.

[steve]

Commonsense wrote:

We know that God is not a man and humans are not God. Since Jesus was a man, He would not be God. Passages that suggest He is God must then mean something else.

I am glad you put it this way, because it very succinctly represents the thinking of many biblical interpreters with who I do not agree.

If there are passages that say Jesus was God, and other passages that say He was man—and we assume (without warrant) that God is incapable of visiting His creatures by assuming for Himself a human nature—an assumption that would seemingly require considerable justification that I have not seen presented)—then, of course, we must choose which set of statements we choose to ignore, or reinterpret.

If we must do such a thing, then I am not sure why we might not choose to deny Jesus was a man, while retaining the scriptures declaring Him top be God (like Doceticism did). If we are going to let one group of passages cancel out another group, the decision on which ones to retain would simply be the flip of a coin.

There are reasons that the overwhelming majority of reverent Bible scholarship has chosen not to reject either group of texts. They believed that the first mistake is in any man declaring what God can our cannot do or be. The inability to understand how God can be manifest in flesh (that is, as a human) is enough to send them looking for novelties of interpretation which I find unnecessary.

[commonsense]

We obtain that "self" by putting on Christ. Or -- when we become connected to Christ and abide in Him, we GAIN that nature, mind spirit, heart, etc. and our "self" changes.

Darin, putting on Christ means changing your ways. It's all the same thing.

"Therefore, put aside all filthiness and overflow of wickedness and receive with meekness the implanted word which is able to save your souls."
"Pursue peace and holiness."
"Each of you must put of falsehood and speak truth to his neighbor."
"Rid yourselves therefore of all malice, deceit, hypocrisy, envy, slander.."
"Wash yourselves, make yourself clean. Put away the evil doings from before My eyes. Cease to do evil and learn to do good."

Self- control is mentioned in the Bible numerous times

If there are passages that say Jesus was God, and other passages that say He was man—and we assume (without warrant) that God is incapable of visiting His creatures by assuming for Himself a human nature—an assumption that would seemingly require considerable justification that I have not seen presented)—then, of course, we must choose which set of statements we choose to ignore, or reinterpret.

Steve, "God is not a man, nor is He a son of man."
That God would visit His creatures by disguising Himself as a human being would cause confusion.
Are we to believe that God can be walking among us now as a human being and we just don't know it?
Should we be looking for other humans who might possibly be God ?

They believed that the first mistake is in any man declaring what God can our cannot do or be.

This sounds like dangerous ground. Many pagan religions worshiped animals and other objects. "They worshiped the creation rather than the Creator."
For example,the ancient Egyptians worshiped cats. Can God be in the form of a cat?

[darinhouston]

They believed that the first mistake is in any man declaring what God can our cannot do or be.

This sounds like dangerous ground. Many pagan religions worshiped animals and other objects. "They worshiped the creation rather than the Creator."
For example,the ancient Egyptians worshiped cats. Can God be in the form of a cat?

I don't think that's responsive to Steve's point. Though I don't think the debate is actually over what God can do, but what he has done. It's a bit of a "could God have made a square circle" sort of discussion, to my mind. It's a philosophically wasteful exercise. A square is not a circle - that's a fair fundamental presupposition that should guide all other relevant inquiry about squares and circles unless we have compelling and incontrovertible information otherwise. If redemption is the "scarlet thread," monotheism and the vast divide between Almighty God and Mankind is the Neon Thread and it seems that everything should be interpreted through that lens where possible and reasonable to do so.

[commonsense]

A square is not a circle - that's a fair fundamental presupposition that should guide all other relevant inquiry

Darin, you're right. A square is not a circle and a man is not God. The Old Testament makes that clear.
"You heard a voice, but you saw NO FORM."
"God is not a man, nor a son of man."
"You shall not make for yourselves any likeness( form) of what is in heaven.." ( I'm quoting from memory, so this may not be the exact wording)

The world was filled with people who believed in all kinds of things- pagan gods, demi-gods, men believing that they were God,etc.etc.you name it.

These things are said because they wanted to make it clear that God is NOT human in any way, shape or form.

[dwight92070]

Commonsense,

Steve, "God is not a man, nor is He a son of man."

Dwight - I will quote Steve here - your first mistake is "declaring what God can or cannot do or be." If He chooses to come as a man, who are we to say that He cannot do that?


That God would visit His creatures by disguising Himself as a human being would cause confusion.

Dwight - There would be catastrophic confusion if He had not come as a human being, because no one could be saved. Thank God that He came as a man to redeem us.

Dwight - It was announced at His birth that He was the Messiah, the Christ, our Savior, the Son of God. There was no disguise or hiding who He really was. John tells us plainly that the Word, which was God, became flesh. The question is not who God is, the question is who do we say that Jesus is. Remember He said, "Who do you say that I am?" I say that He is the Christ, the Son of God, as Peter said. I also agree with John, that He, the Word, was God, and that He became flesh in the person of Jesus.

Are we to believe that God can be walking among us now as a human being and we just don't know it?
Should we be looking for other humans who might possibly be God ?

Dwight -The coming of Christ was foretold. He would be one individual. He has come, has been crucified, and raised from the dead, and is seated at God's right hand. There's no prediction that there would be many Messiahs, just one.

[Otherness]

steve>>>They believed that the first mistake is in any man declaring what God can our cannot do or be.<<<

commonsense>>>This sounds like dangerous ground. Many pagan religions worshiped animals and other objects. "They worshiped the creation rather than the Creator." For example,the ancient Egyptians worshiped cats. Can God be in the form of a cat?>>>

Yes, this response to Steve's point really does miss the point. Specifically, Steve is saying that the “created i am” (that man is) has no business (whatsoever) saying to Uncreated I AM that He cannot be Who He says He IS. The aseity of I AM is as inscrutable as is His, for example, omniscience, omnipotence, and omnipresence. If (and this “if” is only for arguments sake) Uncreated I AM reveals Himself as Trinity, then this is Who He IS because He is the Power TO BE so.

“If” I AM IS Trinity, well...then this is foundational to any subsequent thinking on the subject.

If I AM is Trinity, then, at base, any objection to this revealed truth rests in the “created I am” measuring (judging) Uncreated I AM by its own ontology. Steve, as any thoughtful trinitarian does, “proves” his case from scripture (in his topical lecture on the Trinity).

Certainly the SPIRIT Who is the cause of the mullti-dimensional reality that Creation is, is perfectly capable of existing in a multi-dimensional state Himself in His desire to Father children in His Image (the LOGOS). Trinity is I AM in His creative state; this is Who God IS as Creator (in His role as Creator). This, being the Alpha and Omega (of Creation), Creation must produce the Creator's intended fruit of creation : the Body of Christ.

[commonsense]

Steve is saying that the “created i am” (that man is) has no business (whatsoever) saying to Uncreated I AM that He cannot be Who He says He IS.

Otherness, Jesus was a man. So, in your own words, He would be a created i am.

These people of the Old Testament are saying that god is NOT human, He is not anything that is created. God cannot be seen with the naked. The physical creation itself is not God, nor is anything in it. "They worshiped the creation rather than the Creator."

"God is Spirit."
He isn't the sun, the moon, a tree, a cat, a cow, any other "creeping thing that crawls on the earth" nor is He a man, or any object that has been created by man. God is INVISIBLE. Yet, we can "see" Him. Just as we cannot see the law of physics, or the law of gravity etc. etc., there is a Law that comes from God, by which we live. It is otherwise known as the word, the Law of Christ, the moral code that is written in our hearts etc. This is God(His authority) as it says, "The Word was God." and "The word is very near you, in your mouth and in your heart that you should obey it." and "My words are Spirit and they give life."