What is saving faith?

What happened? You were attempting to harmonize your position with scriptures but now it seems you feel no need to harmonize your position with the scriptures but rather you have changed to simply asserting your views in spite of the scriptures that condemn your view??? The sad thing is that you admit that right up front in your introduction. In other words, you cannot harmonize your ideas with God's Word??? If you could, you would!

May I ask you if God at any time existed without wisdom? Was there point in eternity past God was a FOOLISH God as that is the kind of God He would be without wisdom?

You cannot respond to the evidence I gave you concerning John 1:1-3 so you have retreated to simply asserting your own humanistic ideas that have absolutely no Biblical foundation- that is sad.

Being conscious of that need and fulfilling that need are two different things. The basic and essential aspects of your view fail to measure up to the very minimum basic essentals demanded by the Scriptures. No one embracing what you beleive can possibly have hope for heaven IF that is really what they are basing their hope of salvation upon (Gal. 1:8-9; 2 Cor. 11:3-4) as God is not the author of confusion.

 

Overall I do! However, if you look carefully at what I laid down, the first aspect is a completed irreversable aspect, the second is progressive, varible and conditional and the third is future and instanteous. The second has no impact upon either the first or third but only impacts your experience in this life and rewards in the life to come.

 

Do I understand your response properly? Are you asserting or implying the "oneness" theory? Are you denying the Triune doctrine of God? I ask that as a question because things you have stated thus far do not seem to harmonize with that conclusion? Are you a "Oneness" advocate?

I believe that John calls Him the "Word" because words give expression to invisible thoughts and that is the mission of Christ to not merely give visible expression to an Invisible God (Jn. 1:14,18) but to give visible expression of the Law of God in attitude and actions.

Second, I believe that John calls Him the "Word" because in connection with the creation of all things (Jn. 1:1-4), which is the immediate context, that all Three Person's of the Godhead play different roles in connection with creation.

The Father is the source of "purpose" to create while the Holy Spirit is the source of "power" to create but the Second Person of the Godhead is the source of EXPRESSION through which all things come into being. That is the function of the "Word" to give expression.

The Sun is a fitting symbol of the Godhead in that there is energy, heat and light. It is the "light" that gives visible expression to the energy and heat and Jesus is the "Light" of the World (John 1:4).

Hence, the designation "Word" is a very fitting term for the Second Person of the Godhead as it is Jesus Christ that gives the Invisible God visible EXPRESSION to the world.

Philosophically, the term "Logos" was used by Philo to represent the EXPRESSION of God.

Finally, I would like for you to give a grammatical response to my exposition of John 1:1 in the context of The Word existing prior to creation, thus not a created being ("In the beginning WAS the Word") as the term "beginning" is in the context of creation of all things (vv. 2-3).

I would like for you to give a grammatical response to my exposition of John 1:1 in the context of the Word co-existing "with" God in regard to the act of creation ("the Word was WITH God.....The same was IN the beginning WITH God"). These two phrases demanded His preexistence to all created things and in a relationship WITH God in the act of creating.

I would like for you to give a grammataical response to my exposition of John 1:1 in the context of preexisting creation, with God in the act of creation and yet in regard to his own identity "The Word" previous to creation and in the act of creation WITH God "WAS God." This demands that what is "God" by divine essence involves more than One Divine Person in a co-existence and co-equal relationship.

My friend, context means everything when interpreting a portion of God's Word. John 1:1 uses "Word" to define relationship with creation and to define his personal Identity with God and in regard to his own essence or being. Thus is a fitting term to give visible EXPRESSION of God to man and that is exactly what the overall context of John 1:1-18 is all about. This is the point of the witnesses given and the point of the incarnation.

Isaiah 55:10-11 and the term "word" is found in the context of analogy for the sole purpose to demonstrate that God's prophetic word revealed to men is as certain and as sure and as dependable as the laws of nature. So the "word" in this context is not talking about a Person, or a context designed to identify and define a Person but rather a context designed to make clear that the prophetic Word of God spoken or written by his prophets is dependable.

Please don't respond with philosophical speculations. Provide interpretations of a text or scripture that is confirmed by the use of proper hermeneutics. I have given you contextual specifics rather than speculative opinions. Please respond likewise or else there can be no real substantive discussion.

 

It seems you are very selective in your use of the scriptures. John 10:30 is a favorite text of the Oneness movement. The Greek text uses the neuter not the masculine and therefore Jesus is not claiming to be "one" Person but "one" in nature or divine essence.

John 1:14 declares previous existence of the Word to the incarnation as described in Luke 1:35.

John 1:1-4 is about as clear and explicit as you can find in scripture concerning the identity of the preexistent Jesus Christ. John 1:14,18 demand that it is the Jesus Christ Who is the pre-incarnated Word. If you have another intepretation of John 1:1-3 that can stand up to the grammar and context of John 1:1-3, I would like to read it. The scriptures you are selectively choosing indicate you embrace a HALF truth but not the FULL truth concerning both the nature of God and the identity of Jesus Christ. I will illustrate what I mean in response to two texts you selected to represent what you seem to believe is your position.

In regard to 1 Cor. 8:6. Of course I also believe there is but "One God the Father" because in the Godhead there is no other Person identified as "The Father" whenever used in relationship to other persons. Every "Son" shares the same identical nature of their Father or they are not true Son's and the nature of this Father is "God." That is in perfect keeping with John 1:1 "and The Word was God." The term "Lord" in 1 Cor. 8:6 is eqivilent here to the Hebrew "Yahweh" and indeed that is the very meaning of part of the name "Jesus" - Jehovah savior - and that is the very intent and design behind the giving of that name according to Matthew. "HE shall be called Jesus for HE shall save HIS people from their sins" - Here the angel emphasizes the last aspect of the meaning of Jesus - savior. However, the angel goes on to then emphasize the first aspect of that name by sayinng "HIS PEOPLE shall call him Immanuel" being interpreted "THE God with us" (literal Greek has definite article). Note, this is how "HIS PEOPLE" refer to Him not how Satan's people refer to him! How do YOU refer to him?

So you can see that 1 Corinthians 8:6 fits perfectly with my interpretation of John 1:1-3 because I do not hold to a HALF truth concerning the human nature of Christ but the FULL truth that He is both God and man or God clothed in human nature.

Now in regard to John 17:3. Eternal life is based upon experiential revelation ("know" = epiginosko) of God through the person of Jesus Christ. Christ is the visible expression of the one and only invisible God. This is in keeping with what Jesus just previously told Philip in John 14 (remember these two statements are found in the same discourse in the upper room).

8 Philip saith unto him, Lord, shew us the Father, and it sufficeth us.
9 Jesus saith unto him, Have I been so long time with you, and yet hast thou not known me, Philip? he that hath seen me hath seen the Father; and how sayest thou then, Shew us the Father?
10 Believest thou not that I am in the Father, and the Father in me? the words that I speak unto you I speak not of myself: but the Father that dwelleth in me, he doeth the works.
11 Believe me that I am in the Father, and the Father in me: or else believe me for the very works’ sake.

Siginificantly, Jesus did not say "I am the Father" but only "he that hath SEEN me hath SEEN the Father" because He is "The Word" or the visible expression of the One and only Invisible God - that is one purpose of the incarnation - to reveal what God is like.

You selectively jerk out of context John 20:31 when in context John is confirming Thomas's declaration that Jesus is literally "The God of me and the Lord of me" as the proper identification of who Jesus Christ is and John is declaring that this is the very purpose for writing his book that Christ would be properly defined as "THE GOD" in flesh just as the very first verse in his very first chapter openly declares - John 1:1-4.

They cannot honestly be interpreted to fit any other description of the One True God (Deut. 4:6).

I do not know of any Baptist Confession of Faith that cites the Athanasian Creed as a reference to what they beleive about God. Baptist Confessions of Faith cite scriptures not creeds to support their views. However, the essential definition of The Son of God by the Athanasian creed would harmonize with what Baptist Confessions teach. There are Three co-equal Persons in regard to one divine essence defined as "God" which is spirit, but They are not co-equal in regard to respective positions in the economy of redemption as there is a order of submission in regard to the economy of redemption (Father is in the position of authority sending the Son and the Holy Spirit being sent by the Son. It is in the economy of redemption that the anthropormorphic terms of "Father" versus "Son" have their origin in the everlasting covenant). They are co-eternal as they co-existed previous to all things which have a beginning (Jn. 1:1) and therefore transcend creation.

Hence, the Son is as fully "God" as the Father is "God" and the Holy Spirit is "God" not three different God's but co-sharers of ONE INSEPARABLE DIVINE ESSENCE defined as "God."

This is the grammatical declaration of Deut. 6:4- 4 ¶ Hear, O Israel: The LORD (Yahweh) our God (elohim - plural) is one LORD (Yahweh).

This is a declaration of the same plurality of Person's introduced in Creation - "Let US make (singular verb) man in OUR image (singular noun). - Gen. 1:26.

Sadly, the position you take is a HALF truth and therefore you must carefully SELECT the scriptues to defend your position while avoiding other scriptures (e.g. Jn 1:1, etc.). In contrast, our position does not have to SELECT because we beleive The Son of God is both human in nature and divine in nature and every text fits one or the other.

Also sadly, you believe and preach in "another Jesus" as well as "another Spirit" and thus "another gospel" - 2 Cor. 11:4.

 

His audiance was not convinced by your understanding of Psalm 82:6 or your interpretation of Christ's use of Psalm 82:6 in this context (v. 39). If Christ was interpreting Psalm 82:6 as you suggest then there would have been no basis for them to stone him (vv. 33,39). The contextual explanation given by Christ in John 10 did not prevent the Jews from drawing the conclusion He claimed to be God and attempt to stone him even after referring to Psalm 82:6.

I think you misunderstand Psalm 82:6 and you misunderstand Christ's use of that text in this context. Psalm 82:6 refers to men who are put in the place of God, to exercise judgement over other men. They act in God's behalf but many times misrepresent God. The argument by Christ is very simple. If sinful men can be called "elohim" (gods) representation of God then how much more can he who is the true representation of God in flesh be called God. He then appeals to his works that prove He is more than a mere man. Therefore, instead of denying their charge he rather confirms it and they clearly understand him in that manner as the continue to attempt to stone him (v. 39).

You fail to deal with the fact that John 1:1 not merely demands the Word preexisted creation but the Word preexisted "WITH" God. Jesus often spoke of the glory He had "WITH" the Father [not AS the Father] before He became flesh. Hence, your theory is false!

A fundemental principle of hermeneutics is that you cannot establish doctrine on symbols, parables, spiritualizations, metaphors, examples, but on clear precepts and only then use the previous things as supportive.

Another fundemental principle of hermeneutics is that you interpret the unclear by the clear not vice versa.

Another fundemental principle of hermeneutics is that you cannot pit scripture against scripture. You are guilty of violating all of these fundementals by your interpretation of "wisdom."

You mean despite the fact that you are mixing apples with oranges in order to force a conclusion that neither text will support if you are HONEST with them. There is a difference between the FAITHFULNESS of the PROPHETIC word of the gospel, which is the subject in Isaiah 55:1-7 and the POWER of the PERSON of the gospel which is the subject of John 1:1-3. The former speaks of a correct CONTENT that is to be received as the "sure mercy" of David. The latter speaks of the CHARACTER of a Person. There is no excuse to confuse them and only heresy can be the result of forcing that conclusion upon them.

You cannot prove that the term "Lord" here represents adonai rather than Yahweh! That is simply your assertion. I can prove that the New Testament writers quote Old Testament texts that contain the term "Yahweh" and
purposely apply it to Jesus Christ as "Lord." Hence, you cannot possibly deny that Jesus is Yahweh by this direct application. In addition, Yahew is also called "adonai" and therefore if Jesus is designated "Yahew" then he also is "adonai" as well as Yahweh is adonai and this is the equivilent to what Paul says in the very same epistle, 1 Corinthians 12:3, "Jesus is Lord." However, you cannot argue in reverse as you attempt to do. By denying he is "Yahew" you attempt to divorce the term "adonai" from Jesus. However, if Jesus is "Yahweh" He is equally "adonai."

In addition, Psalm 110:1 proves there is a PERSONAL CHARACTER DISTINCTION between the Father and the prexistent Logos and David recognized that distinction. However, you deny such a preexistent distinction between The Father and The Logos. David recognizes Him as distinct in PERSON from The Father and uses personal pronouns to convey that as well as "adonai."

I didn't explain it. I simply related how the angel explained it! It is the angel that said "HIS PEOPLE SHALL CALL" him "Immanuel" and it is the angel who interpreted what that means to "HIS PEOPLE" as "THE God with us." Your argument is with the angel not with me.

Paul writing to the very same congregation makes a clear distinction of Persons in 1 Cor. 12:4-5 and 2 Cor. 13:8

The grammar does not support your position here. The definite article precedes the first noun "the only true God" but is absent from the second noun "Jesus Christ" and thus Jesus Christ stands in juxtaposition declaring His unity with the Father in the same Godhead.
Kind regards
Trevor[/QUOTE]

 

You ignore that the angel interpreted "immanuel" to mean "THE GOD" with us. You ignore that Thomas defined Jesus as "THE GOD of me" which no Jew would ever use such a designation for merely a man. Neither said "a god." Hence, your argument "God the Son" verus "Son of God" makes no difference.

Sooo, in order for you to beleive something you first have to understand it huh??? Do you understand how God spoke something into existence from non-existence? Do you really beleive you will EVER fully understand God even if that God was limited to your definition????? Pretty lame exuse don't you think?

However, the triune nature of God is clearly revealed by God in almost every part of creation.

1. Time - past is not present and present is not future but they are inseparably one because all future time was present and all present time will be past - three but one.

2. Space - depth, lenghth and width. Draw a line on a chalk board and attempt only to erase one of these aspects? They are distinct and yet they are inseparably one.

3. Matter - energy, motion and phenomena. All distinct but none can exist without the other and therefore inseparably one.

You talk about absolute pure excessive abuse of the Scriptures - your explanation takes the cake!!

First, you fail to recognize that the plural pronoun "us" and "we is grammatically tied to SINGULAR verbs and nouns and thus impossible to include angels.

Second, nowhere in scriptures are angels ever said to have been created in the "image" of God.

Third, Isaiah 40:13 denies that God ever included anyone else in his counsel when creating man or this universe.

Fourth, Psalm 8:5 only talks about the status of man in regard to angels not that angels acted together in concert with God to create man!!


Just because something is beyond our capability to comprehend does not mean it is not comprehensible. Can the finite every really fully comprehend the infinite? Would it not require being infinite to understand the infinite? Is not this the very argument that Christ gives to those who deny his claims - that He alone comprehends the Father and who can do that but one who is equally infinite.

Mt 11:27 All things are delivered unto me of my Father: and no man knoweth the Son, but the Father; neither knoweth any man the Father, save the Son, and he to whomsoever the Son will reveal him.

Take note that the Son is as incomprehensible to men as is the Father and the Father as is the Son.

"HIS PEOPLE" call him "THE GOD with us" - Mt. 1:23

 

First, note his accusers charge "Thou makesth thyself to be GOD."

Second, He is not denying that charge, but further asserting it by defending his claim with an argument from lessor to greater. If wicked men can be called "God" (Elohim - same term used for God) then how much more One whose works demonstate that he is MORE THAN A MAN.

Third, If these Jews understood him to mean what you interpret him to mean then they would have just said, "Oh, ok, no problem." However, they understood He was defending his claim not denying it and that is why they continued to seek to stone him.

First, In John 10 the unity between Jesus as "the Son of God" and the Father is something NOT EQUALLY shared by the sheep - UNITY IN POWER to protect the sheep; The sheep are the OBJECT of a shared unity between The Son of God and the Father;

Second, whereas, in John 17 the UNITY is something EQUALLY shared between the sheep, Jesus and the Father - sanctification by truth - Jn. 17:17-23. You simply jerked verses 20-23 out of its context.

This actually condemns your interpretation as error. Note that the Jews understood His claims as making himself to be "EQUAL WITH GOD." The Jews understood the use of "the Son of God" to be "EQUAL WITH GOD" and so did Christ as Christ replies to their charge by reaffirming his claim to be "the Son of God." It is this very phrase to be "The Son of God" that the High Priest in his trial claimed to be sufficient evidence to sentence him to death for blashphemy. Both the Jews and Christ knew and understood that the phrase "The Son of God" was understood to mean that He was claiming to be "EQUAL WITH GOD." His response only confirmed this charge in their minds and that is precisely why they attempting to take him and stone him.

The term "sanctified" simply means "to set apart." Now, you are taking a term to make BROAD what is SPECIFIC by context. Even God Himself is found under this BROAD term. You can run anywhere you want with this BROAD term and that is precisely what you are doing.

However, sanctification in this precise context has to do with EQUAL POWER with God in preserving the elect rather than merely being set aside for ministry unto God as in the case of every child of God whether Moses or David or etc. Sanctification here has to do with the charge of being "EQUAL WITH GOD" not being merely a servant of God. Sanctification in this context has to do with EQUAL POWER with God not merely being a representative with God.

Jesus said, "I and the Father are One" in regard to what he specifically said in verse 29 where he described the security of the sheep as being in His hand and the Father's hand for protection - POWER to preserve and protect. Neither Moses, David or any other human could make this claim in regard to God's sheep.

Again, this is evidence against your view not for it! When Jesus claimed EQUAL POWER with God they charged him with blasphemy and interpreted their ground for stoning him to be that he made himself "EQUAL WITH GOD." When Jesus responded to this charge, he used a phrase "the Son of God" as a synonym of their charge "EQUAL WITH GOD" rather than denied it and they understood he was defending it as they resumed in their effort to take and stone him. Likewise with the Caiaphas. Caiaphas understood the claim to be "the Son of God" COMING WITH POWER and GLORY to be claiming to be "EQUAL WITH GOD" and grounds for killing him.

 

I said the use of the term "kurios" or "Lord" when used in connection to Christ represents "Yahew" and the Biblical evidence is overwhelming that this is exactly what it means when used of Christ especially in contexts that attribute to Christ characteristics that are restricted to Yahweh alone:

1. As Savior - Isa 43:11 I, even I, am the LORD; and beside me there is no saviour.

2. As first and last - Isa 44:6 Thus saith the LORD the King of Israel, and his redeemer the LORD of hosts; I am the first, and I am the last; and beside me there is no God.

3. As God - Isa 44:6 Thus saith the LORD the King of Israel, and his redeemer the LORD of hosts; I am the first, and I am the last; and beside me there is no God.

4. As Lord of lords - 1Ti 6:15 Which in his times he shall shew, who is the blessed and only Potentate, the King of kings, and Lord of lords;

Re 19:16 And he hath on his vesture and on his thigh a name written, KING OF KINGS, AND LORD OF LORDS.

Re 17:14 These shall make war with the Lamb, and the Lamb shall overcome them: for he is Lord of lords, and King of kings: and they that are with him are called, and chosen, and faithful.

De 10:17 For the LORD your God is God of gods, and Lord of lords, a great God, a mighty, and a terrible, which regardeth not persons, nor taketh reward:

There are literally scores of Messanic prophecies by David. Peter explicitly states that David said all these things as a matter of HIS OWN PERSONAL FAITH in the coming Messiah WHEN DAVID ALIVE!

25 For David speaketh concerning him, I foresaw the Lord always before my face, for he is on my right hand, that I should not be moved:
26 Therefore did my heart rejoice, and my tongue was glad; moreover also my flesh shall rest in hope:
27 Because thou wilt not leave my soul in hell, neither wilt thou suffer thine Holy One to see corruption.
28 Thou hast made known to me the ways of life; thou shalt make me full of joy with thy countenance.
29 Men and brethren, let me freely speak unto you of the patriarch David, that he is both dead and buried, and his sepulchre is with us unto this day.
30 Therefore being a prophet, and knowing that God had sworn with an oath to him, that of the fruit of his loins, according to the flesh, he would raise up Christ to sit on his throne;

David understood and believed God's promise of a coming Messiah and identified the coming Messiah DURING HIS LIFE as "my Lord" just we look back to completed prophecy and yet acknowledge him as "my Lord and my God" just as Thomas did when he was alive with Christ.

So you cannot just regulate and restrict this prophecy to the future because it was a matter of PRESENT FAITH with David in regard to Christ - David was expressing his own present personal Theology of what Christ would do in the future.

Your quote by Peter above OMITS the preceding context which showed that although this was a future event from the time of David it was a PERSONAL PRESENT beleif of David's due to revelation from God to Him DURING HIS LIFE and thus part of his own THEOLOGICAL view of Christ.

That is not true! The Old Testament restricts this name to God alone as it is His own Personal Name shared with no creature:


Ps 83:18 That men may know that thou, whose name alone is JEHOVAH, art the most high over all the earth.

Isa 42:8 I am the LORD: that is my name: and my glory will I not give to another, neither my praise to graven images.

Joh 5:23 That all men should honour the Son, even as they honour the Father. He that honoureth not the Son honoureth not the Father which hath sent him.

 

John 1:1 and the Godhood of Christ

Jn 1:1 ¶ In the beginning was the Word, and the Word was with God, and the Word was God.
2 The same was in the beginning with God.
3 All things were made by him; and without him was not any thing made that was made.
4 In him was life; and the life was the light of men.

There can be no successful denial that the above verses are defining who Christ IS as "the Word was made flesh and dwelt [tabernacled] among us" (Jn. 1:14,18).

He is still "The Word" but tabernacled in flesh and He returns the second time as "The Word" (Rev. 19) still tabernacled in flesh.

The entire book of John was written to prove this very assertion of His nature (Jn. 20:28-31).

You run from this text and its context. John 1:1-3 defines who the pre-incarnate Christ is in regard to CREATED THINGS. The word "beginning" is contextually defined to refer to the "beginning" of created things (vv. 2-3).

1. In the Beginning of created things he "was" already existing - "In the beginning WAS the Word.

2. In the creation of all things He was the Creator of all things, so that not one thing which comes into existence by creation occurred apart from being created by Him.

3. In relationship to what is called "God" He is by nature God but He is not by nature all that the term "God" applies to.

a. He prexisted creation "WITH" God. "the Word was with God"
b. He preexisted creation as "God" - "the Word was God"
c. He created all things "with" God - "The same was in the beginning WITH God."

CONCLUSION: He is outside the realm of created things and thus TRANSCENDS all creation - None But God is eternal and only God transcends creation.

He is by nature "God" in contrast to all created things.

Yet, He is not all that "God" applies to as He was "WITH" (Gr. pros - face to face - equal to) God when the first created thing came into being. John is purposely identifying John 1:1 with Genesis 1:1 as his reference point - the Creator and Creation.

The language is clear. The meaning is clear. All you can do is run and/or try to confuse the langauge.