Steve's mission statement

[Guest]

Re the statement "The bible condemns those who deny the diety of Christ", what about those who simply do not understand this doctrine? Say they firmly believe as much as Peter confessed to Jesus about who Jesus was, which faith Jesus counted as a great blessing, then later an attempt to explain the trinity to them is met with a lack of comprehension on their part? Are they then lost? And how many of the 3,000 saved on the day of pentecost had the doctrine down pat?

I too think we are far better off speaking of biblical things with biblical words. We should be careful about heaping burdens on people they are unable to bear. (Seems like I read that somewhere.)

I say this as a trinitarian.

[Guest]

Hi JJB,

I certainly agree with you that the divinity of Christ is a very basic doctrine, and I have always seen it very clearly taught in scripture. I also agree with Chris and Homer that not all who love the Lord have found this doctrine to be as plainly taught as I have found it to be. My question is not whether or not we should believe and teach the deity of Christ (we should and I do). It is more a question of whether a person is saved by grasping theological concepts with the head or by surrender of the heart to the Lordship of Christ.

[_JJB]

I don't know guys. Are we talking past each other? Am I talking apples and you are talking oranges?

The deity of Christ is not something that is dismissible. That is what Arians argued against: Christ's deity. Are some of you saying Christ's deity is questionable?

How can we surrender to the Lordship of Christ if we do not know Him? We are commanded thru Scripture to know the Lord. How do we do that? We do that through the study of His word.

[Guest]

I haven't heard anyone here question the deity of Christ. I, for one, don't think it is questionable. You might understand where I am coming from better by taking a look at this thread: http://www.wvss.com/forumc/viewtopic.ph ... essentials

[_JJB]

Re the statement "The bible condemns those who deny the diety of Christ", what about those who simply do not understand this doctrine? Say they firmly believe as much as Peter confessed to Jesus about who Jesus was, which faith Jesus counted as a great blessing, then later an attempt to explain the trinity to them is met with a lack of comprehension on their part? Are they then lost? And how many of the 3,000 saved on the day of pentecost had the doctrine down pat?

I too think we are far better off speaking of biblical things with biblical words. We should be careful about heaping burdens on people they are unable to bear. (Seems like I read that somewhere.)

I say this as a trinitarian.

Is not the doctrine of the trinity learned as part of growing in Christ? Are we to remain babes and drink only milk?

Christ's deity is at the core of salvation. That seems very straight forward and simple to me. How do you share the gospel? How do you explain who Christ is? Do you neglect the fact that He is God?

We do have the teachings of our brothers and sisters who went before us in the faith and I think we should learn from them. We can stand on their shoulders and see from their study and thoughtfulness. Isn't that why we read books? Isn't that why we listen to pastors?

[_JJB]

JJB wrote:

"Were Arians saved before the Nicene Council? Scripture tells us no. The Bible condemns those who deny the deity of Christ."

I would be interested in seeing the relevant verses where this condemnation is found.



Christ's divinity is a very basic Christian belief. There are many verses that point to Jesus' deity. If you deny that, you deny Christ's very nature. If you do not have the life of Christ, through the denial of His nature, you remain dead in sin and God's wrath remains.

I too would be interested in seeing your biblical case for making this statement. Would you say that everyone we see in the bible getting saved understood the exact nature of Christ as we have come to understand it today?

The question you pose, Christopher, is one that no one can answer one way or another, unless you think I or someone else has mind reading abilities.

The whole book of Hebrews talks of Christ's deity. If you deny Christ's deity, you deny Him. It is His very nature.

[Guest]

Hi JJB,

I appreciate your zeal to defend the doctrine of the Trinity. I also believe that Scripture reveals this truth and that we should teach wholeheartedly our convictions about it.

However, the point I (and I think Steve and Homer) are trying to make here is that we cannot be certain from scripture that God requires this level of intellectual understanding for salvation and thus the identification of true brothers and sisters in Christ. If looked at without the lens of the Nicean council, it's understandable how someone could reach different conclusions from the same Bible. To define a Christian more narrowly than the Bible does starts us on a path of divisiveness that is, in my opinion, inappropriate and counter-productive to the growth and maturity of the Body of Christ that we must strive towards (Eph 4:13).

When a JW (an Arian) comes to my door, I do not automatically assume that this is a lost soul. This may simply be a brother in the faith that has not yet been completely enlightened. This is not without scriptural precedent (see Acts 18:26 comp. w/ Matt 28:19). He may love Jesus just as much as I do for all I know. However, once someone is enlightened to the truth and decides to suppress it, I would then begin questioning the sincerity of that persons' confession of faith, though I'm still not willing to make a final judgment about the state of that person's soul since it's not always possible to discern between lack of understanding and sheer obstinance. That's God's department, no mine.

I think we'd all do well to take our cues from the Jerusalem council (Acts 15), which was made up of inspired Apostles and elders, rather than the future church councils that were made up of fallible men, whose inspiration is uncertain. The former focused mainly on love toward the brethren and submission to Christ's Lordship (moral and holy living) and the latter mainly on words and meanings of things difficult to understand and agree upon (Titus 3:9).

By the way, as I understand it, "orthodoxy" was only 1 stubbornly faithful man away from favoring Arianism at the Nicean council.

Lord bless you brother.

[Guest]

(Apparently, Chris was writing his post as I was writing this one. He posted his just before I posted mine, so I had not seen his. Thus, I have inadvertently duplicated some of his points.)



JJB,

There is no reason to become irritated with those who are here in dialogue with you, since we all believe about Christ the same as you do. We all preach the same Gospel and the same Jesus that you preach. We agree that the deity of Christ is the true doctrine of scripture, and that new converts should become aware of this through instruction or through their own reading of scripture.

But what if that new convert does not receive such teaching, or has no Bible (let's say he is in China), and is ignorant of this doctrine? Does this mean that he was never converted, or that, after passing some chronological point in his life and still not understanding the trinity doctrine, he ceases to be saved? You must realize how many people in the world do not have Bibles, or do not have access to good instruction, or do not have a high level of intelligence, and cannot synthesize the data of scripture as you and I can so as to recognize the doctrine of the trinity?

Many Arians may fall into one of these categories. If you are like most of us, you probably did not thoroughly understand the trinity (and, if you were like the disciples of old, you probably did not fully understand the deity of Christ) at the time of your decision to follow Christ. But you had occasion to learn.

Suppose that a young person commits his life to Christ, and, like most of us at the time of our conversion, does not have a very sophisticated or orthodox grasp of theology, and the first teachers who get their hands on him are Jehovah's Witnesses. From early-on, he is indoctrinated to believe that the trinity doctrine is a paganized invention of the Roman Catholic Church, and that the Bible teaches (they give him many proof texts) that Jesus is less than Jehovah. This young man becomes a fully convinced Arian for no other reason than that he believes this to be the position most loyal to scripture and to the Lord that he is determined to follow. Do you think this an uncommon scenario? I don't.

I believe that a man is saved by his belief in and loyalty to the Lordship and divine origin of Christ. This was the case of the early disciples, as well as almost everyone who ever has been converted since. Once a man is saved, his understanding of Christ grows progressively—either quickly or very slowly, depending upon factors like his IQ or who indoctrinates him first.

When we meet someone who understands less than we do, is it our place to condemn him, or is it ours to educate him? I am of the second inclination. Not all people have the same capacity to understand complex theological truth, but all have the capacity to choose to love the truth and to pursue it. If salvation is available to all men, then God must be primarily looking for that heart response.

Homer, Chris and I have not suggested that new Christians should not be taught correct theology. We are simply saying that, since no man (including you and I) understands all things accurately about Jesus, we should be cautious about deciding what level of theological unsophistication will damn a man.

John the Baptist, for example, apparently died without a full grasp of Christ's deity and mission (since Jesus had never taught about the trinity or his own deity in John's presence, how could John be blamed, if he didn't know?). John even questioned, on one occasion, whether Jesus was following the right course. Nonetheless, I fully expect to see the man in heaven.

It is possible to champion the truth without the need to condemn the ignorant that has so often characterized the church.

[_JJB]

I do not understand, Steve, why you say I am irritated......I am merely trying to understand what you are advocating.

Anyway, I do hear you all saying that the deity of Christ is not necessary to understand at point of salvation. I understood Christ was God at my salvation. How do you share the good news with someone?

In one paragraph you tell me that you believe the same as I do, yet in another paragraph you contradict that. Is the deity of Christ a sophisticated theological construct in your mind?

You think I advocate condemning all who believe differently than I do? I'm not sure where you got that. I do think, tho, that there are essentials to faith that cannot be denied. Deity of Christ and the trinity are two of them. Arians were long ago called heretics and are still called so today. The church did contend for that faith and tried to correct them, apparently unsuccessfully. Can you or I correct/teach them? We can try, but only God can change their hearts. Our job is to share the gospel.

As for John the Baptist, he recognized Christ for who He is when they were both in their wombs!

Am I totally misunderstanding you? Please, correct me if I am. Must Christ be recognized as God for salvation? I do not think the doctrine of the trinity is necessary to understand for salvation, but I think it's clear in scripture and should be understood during a person's walk with God.

Thomas, doubting Thomas, understood Jesus' deity.

[Guest]

I agree that Thomas recognized Jesus as God, after the resurrection. However, Philip (and possibly others of the apostles) didn't understand it as late as at the last supper (John 14:8-9).

John the Baptist recognized Jesus as the Messiah, both in the womb and afterward. Did he also understand that the Messiah was God incarnate? I don't know. It wasn't the prevailing Jewish understanding of the Messiah. If he was more aware of this than were the rest of the Jews, we are not informed of it.

Could you show me anywhere in the preaching of the Book of Acts where the deity of Christ is clearly stated to an unsaved audience?

I find Jesus declared to be "Lord and Christ" by Peter on the Day of Pentecost. (Acts 2:36). Three-thousand people got saved by nthat sermon, and our understanding of the deity of Christ was not even clearly presented to them there.

In Peter's second sermon, he described Jesus as God's "Servant" (3:13, 26), as "the holy and just One" (v.14), as the "Prince of life" (v.15) and as the "Prophet" like Moses (vv.22-23). About two-thousand more people got saved through this sermon, which, arguably, does not present the deity of Christ in terms such as we now understand it.

In the house of Cornelius, Peter declared that Jesus is "Lord of all" (Acts 10:36), and says that Jesus was anointed by God and "God was with Him" (v.38) and is the One who is to be the "Judge of the living and the dead" (v.42). This information was sufficient to bring the first Gentiles into the faith.

Paul's preaching, just after his conversion, was that Jesus "is the Son of God" (Acts 9:20) and "Jesus is the Christ" (9:22). In a later sermon, Paul declared Christ to be the "Savior" (13:23) and the one who fulfills the promise made to David—i.e., the Messiah (vv.32-37).

In all of these cases, people got saved in large numbers, but we do not hear that they were presented, in any case, with even the fact of Christ's deity, as we understand it.

Of course, we read our understanding of this dactrine into such titles as "Christ" and "Son of God"—but many people do not do so, and there is little reason to think that either the first-century Jews or the Gentiles recognized this meaning of these terms.

Even Billy Graham, and many modern evangelists manage to get people saved without mentioning in every sermon that Jesus is God incarnate. Billy believes this, as do all Christian evangelists, but they do not always present this information in their sermons (just as Jesus and the apostles did not).

What this means is, there are many people who really do get saved without even hearing that Jesus is God. This understanding, ideally, will be presented to them at some early point of their Christian training, but, as I said above, some do not receieve this training, and in lands where Bibles are scarce, the truth of this matter might never be heard or learned by some who love the Lord.

My original question to you was, where, in scripture, are we told that such people are condemned?