Steve's mission statement

[Guest]

Steve, what comes to mind about confessing Jesus as Lord it must include his deity. If not, it is a different Christ. I do not think it necessary tohave a full, complete understanding of Jesus' nature, but to know He is God incarnate. That was my understanding at the point of my salvation.

Romans 10:9-10, 13 (New International Version)

9That if you confess with your mouth, "Jesus is Lord," and believe in your heart that God raised him from the dead, you will be saved. 10For it is with your heart that you believe and are justified, and it is with your mouth that you confess and are saved. .... 13for, "Everyone who calls on the name of the Lord will be saved."

then in my reading I happened upon this:

The most significant use of the word "Lord" (kurios) in the Gospel of John is to confess that Jesus is God. It is the highest possible confession of faith in Jesus Christ. Kurios is used in John in quotations from the Old Testament and is the standard Greek equivalent for the Hebrew name for God, Yahweh or Jehovah (LORD). This is the highest confession of Jesus' deity. We must make the same confession in order to be saved (Rom.10:9-10, 13; 1:4; Acts 2:36).

taken from here: http://www.abideinchrist.com/keys/deity.html

As for the condemnation, does it not follow that if one is not saved, one remains condemned?

[Guest]

Again I would like to state as plainly as I can that I firmly believe the Father, Jesus, and the Holy Spirit are God. How this can be and yet there be only be one God is a difficult concept. Today our modern doctors of divinity are fond of referring to the Trinity as three persons, words not found in scripture.

The word "person" has a clear meaning. It means an individual, one who can not be divided. How can one God be three individuals? This I can not explain.

It is my understanding that at one time the preferred terminology for the Trinity was three persona which means God is one yet manifests Himself in three roles simultaneously, which would differ from the modalist who asserts that God can only manifest Himself as one person at a time.

The question that comes to mind is this: has God, in Christ, provided for the salvation of everyone or just those who can correctly explain the true nature of God on judgement day?

[Guest]

I am not an Arian. Yet, I think many have misunderstood Arianism.
Arius himself in one of his letters referred to Christ as "fully God". So in what sense did he not believe in the deity of Christ?

Certain Trinitarian fanatics think that anyone who does not accept Trinitarian doctrine, except modalists, deny the deity of Christ. Arius did not deny the deity of Christ.

I am not a modalist. But modalism pre-dated Trinitarianism. It was propogated by Sabellius.

Justin Martyr, Irenaeus, and most other second century Christians were NEITHER Trinitarians or modalists. They taught that Christ was generated from (or "begotten by") the Father as the first of His acts. They didn't consider the Holy Spirit to be a third divine Individual, but rather the persons of the Father and the Son. Both Justin and Irenaeus clearly taught the deity of Christ.

In my opinion, it is ludicrous to require subscription to Trinitarian doctrine as a criterion for being a true Christian. Trinitarianism was essentially a reaction to Arianism. Arians went too far with the historic Christian teaching by affirming that "there was a TIME when the Son did not exist", and also that the Son was begotten OUT OF NOTHING.

Writings of Tertullian in the early third century teach the Trinity and even use the word "Trinity" . In my opinion, the Trinitarianism in Tertullian's writings is an interpolation from later years. But if I am wrong in this opinion, we should perhaps consider the fact that Tertullian left the main church in 203 A.D. to join the Montanists (considered to be a heresy in Tertullian's day). If his Trinitarian writing is genuine, one might ask whether he got these ideas from the Montanists.

In summary, it seems most unreasonable to judge a person's standing with God on the basis of that person's position with regards to a teaching that was propogated mostly in the early 4th century.

I agree with Steve that repentance and discipleship is the criterion where one's standing with the Lord is concerned. And even though Steve is a Trinitarian and I am not, I do not believe this difference in belief separates as us brethren in Christ. From my reading of Steve's posts in this forum, I recognize him as a true disciple of Christ. Our unity in Christ does not depend on philosophical or theological agreement. It depends upon our submission to Jesus AS LORD of our lives.

[Guest]

I think Homer put it well using the expression "three persona" because for three persons or individuals to all be diety yet only one God violates God's own laws of nature and physics. Yes, Jesus is divine without doubt but to say he is truly an independent self sustaining individual apart from his Father means there must be more then one God.
All Paul said for salvation is that "if you confess with your mouth Jesus as Lord and believe in your heart he was raised from the dead you will be saved." Romans 10.9
Where is the Trinity in this, in fact where did Paul state you must believe Jesus is God, because this would be the place to emphatically affirm this requirement.

[Guest]

In Romans 9, Paul preaches Christ, who is God over all. Then it is followed with Chapter 10, and confessing that Jesus is Lord. Also see the use of the word "Lord" in one of the quotes I posted.

The question that comes to mind is this: has God, in Christ, provided for the salvation of everyone or just those who can correctly explain the true nature of God on judgement day?

You and I would differ on the phrase "provided for the salvation of everyone". Which is why I didn't answer your question previously, because I do not want to derail the thread. Here we can get into the universal argument, or Arminian vs. Reformed. I maintain that Jesus is a kinsman-redeemer just like Boaz in the book of Ruth.

No one can explain the true nature of God. God is mysterious. We cannot even understand what comes to us in our lives, yet God allows it all. We are commanded to learn and not remain babes. The trinity is revealed as far back as the book of Genesis. I do not think God will ask us about our understanding of his nature on the day of judgment. Many Isrealites and their fathers (Abraham, Isaac and Jacob) had their faith counted as righteousness by God. They did not understand the trinity, but after Christ it becomes clear -- yet still mysterious. Also with Christ, comes the fulfilled covenant, revealed for all of us today.

This has been an interesting discussion. I think we will not come to agreement, so it is time for me to withdraw. Considering also that Steve posted his mission statement and that was what I wanted to see. I remain convinced that there is right doctrine and wrong doctrine. We cannot be brethren with people who continue to deny Christ's deity. Our God is a jealous God and it is Him alone that I desire to please. I do not think all who call themselves followers of Christ actually are followers of Christ. Does our Lord say that not all who call me Lord will enter see heaven? We are also called to test the spirits to see if they are true.

[Guest]

JJB, Is the only purpose of a discussion to come to an agreement or is it to search for the truth?
Romans 9.5 is interesting "Christ came,who is over all,God blessed for ever Amen" KJV
"from whom is the Christ according to the flesh,who is over all,God blessed forever,Amen." NASB
"whom according to the flesh,Christ came,who is over all ,the eternally blessed God,Amen." NKJV
The NASB and KJV say Christ is God blessed but the NKJV says Christ is the eternally blessed God.
I think Hebrews says that a greater can bless a lesser and Christ did say "My Father is greater then i" but that's another subject.
IMHO Romans 9.5 does'nt impact what Paul said in Romans 10.9 which is a very specific statement about salvation.

[Guest]

Yes, Jesus is divine without doubt but to say he is truly an independent self sustaining individual apart from his Father means there must be more then one God.

Jesus prayed to His Father as to another Individual. Or was He praying to Himself?

One of Jesus' arguments by analogy indicate that He considered Himself and His Father to be TWO! According to Jewish law, the testimony of two people are two. Jesus and His Father are TWO People who bear witness to Jesus.

In your law it is written that the testimony of two people is true; I bear witness to myself, and the Father who sent me bears witness to me." John 8:17,18


Perhaps the clearest example is found in Jesus prayer to His Father:

"This is eternal life, that they may know You, the only true God, and Jesus Christ whom You have sent. John 17:3

As for Rom 9:5, how can Christ be the God who is over all, when He clearly stated that the Father is greater than He?

Since so many scriptures conflict with this translation, shouldn't we question the translation? Here is the way the Revised Standard translates it:

... to them belong the patriarchs, and of their race, according to the flesh, is the Christ. God who is over all be blessed for ever. Amen
Romans 9:5 RSV

[Guest]

Paidion,

How can there be two individuals (indivisible) but only one God? Please explain. I think we are "sailing on the sea of speculation" and nearing shipwreck.

[Guest]

Homer, the question you asked needs to be answered.

The word "theos" (God) is used in two different ways in the scriptures.
First, it is used in reference to the Father alone. In such cases it is prefixed by the word "ho" (the). So "the God" always refers to the Father.
Nowhere in the New Testament is Jesus called "the God".

Secondly, the word "theos" without the definite article refers to a divine order of being. In this case it is a generic term. It is used in a similar way in which we use the word "man" in reference to any or all of mankind.
Yahweh begat only one offspring before all ages. He is called "the only begotten Son". This means that there were no others.

Whenever a human being generates an offspring, that offspring qualifies generically as "man". It is also called "human".

When God begat His only Son, that Son, generically, is "God". He is called "divine", and is the only divine being in the Universe --- other than His Father.

Both senses are used in John 1:1. Translated literally, the words are:

"In the beginning was the Logos, and the Logos was with the God and God was the Logos."

The Logos, the son of God was with the Father in the beginning. The sentence does NOT say that He WAS the Father.

The phrase "God was the Logos" is a reversal. The same reversal is used elsewhere where it is said that "God is love" and "Your word is truth".
By means of this reversal, the Greek indicates that "The Logos was God"
means that God (generically) is the kind of thing that the Logos was.
A good translation might be "The Logos was Deity".

Martin Luther a good Greek scholar put it very succinctly. He said that the lack of an article is against Sabellianism; the word order is against Arianism.

Sabellianism was an early form of modalism --- the idea that there is only one divine Individual who expresses Himself in three modes: Father, Son, and Holy Spirit.

Arianism, according to Luther's understanding was that it taught that Christ was a created being, and therefore merely "a god". If it weren't for the reversal in word order, the correct translation would be "The logos was a god" as the New World Translation of the Jehovah's Witnesses have it.

The fact that God is plural also comes out in Genesis. Even the Hebrew word "Elohim" is plural. Thus "In the beginning Gods created the heaven and the earth. Also, Elohim said, "Let's go down and confound their language." Was Elohim speaking to the angels as per the official Jewish interpretation? Was Elohim using the "royal we"? Or was the Father speaking to His Son?

So the bottom line is:

If by "God" we mean a divine Individual who is Deity, then there are two ---- the Father and the Son.

If by "God" we mean the Divine Order of Being, the generic Whole of Deity, then there is only One.

But there is a different sense in which Jesus and His Father are One:
The Father and the Son are united in a way that no other two individuals in the Universe are united. The Son is "the express image" of the Father's essence. They are so identical, that if you've seen one, you've seen the other. That's why Jesus was able to say to Philip, "He who has seen me has seen the Father." If I were to show you a photograph of myself, and then a second made from the same negative, you might say, "You've shown us the same picture again". Strictly speaking, it wasn't the same picture, but it was the same image. So in the sense that the two divine Individuals are exactly alike one may say that there is "one God".

[Guest]

Maybe the best analogy is the sun with it's rays and with it's heat. The Father would be the sun , Jesus would be the rays of the sun and the Holy Spirit the heat. The rays are distinguishable from the sun but can't exist apart from the sun. The sun is the source of life but the rays sustain us.
Regarding the Holy Spirit , to me the personhood here is less clear because the greek word for Spirit"numa" is used in many other instances other then Holy Spirit. "Numa" is used for human spirit, poor in spirit,Paul's spirit,flesh vs spirit,quench not the spirit,evil spirit,spirit of truth,etc. In the OT God would bring someone understanding whereas in the NT the Holy Spirit brings us understanding. It would be clearer if the Spirit in Holy Spirit had a different word other then the same word used various other spirits which is "numa."