Craigbythesea
Well-Known Member
Amen! And when a giraffe becomes an elephant . . . they are found to be in deep manure.
-
Welcome to Baptist Board, a friendly forum to discuss the Baptist Faith in a friendly surrounding.
Your voice is missing! You will need to register to get access to all the features that our community has to offer.
We hope to see you as a part of our community soon and God Bless!
is correct trinity belief required for salvation? - it's not in the OT
- Thread starter Aki
- Start date
HankD,
Isa 53, Psa 22 et.al. Yes, no doubt that there are many clear prophecies of the death of the Messiah. Clear from the pespective of hindsight.
My point was that in the OT, saints did not have to have faith in the substitionary atonement that would one day take place on the cross. They had faith in what they understood of God's revelation to that point.
The fact that even the disciples did not have a clue about the cross till afterward, indicates that OT saints were not saved on the basis of their faith in the vicarious death of a coming Messiah. The disciples did not understand, yet their names (except for the unclean one) were "written in heaven" (Luke 10:20). Jesus said, "What I do, thou knowest not now, but thou shalt know hereafter" (John 13:7). Yes, immediate interpretation fits the washing of the feet, but the appication certainly fits their understanding of the next 72+ hours very well.
1Pet 1:10-12 indicates that although the prophets delivered the message, they did not understand how to balance out the aspects of the suffering of Messiah and the glory of Messiah. Certainly the Jews of Jesus' day did not see the stigma of the cross as a fulfillment of OT prophecy. Of course, they were "not His sheep" (John 10:26).
Abraham and David were both justified (declared righteous) on the basis of their faith. Yet, there is absolutely not indication that either of them understood that Jesus would one day be the lamb that God would provide or the sacrifice that God had prepared from eternity past. Certainly Abraham's words on the mount were prophetic of the coming death of Christ. No way he understood the full significance of his utterance, IMHO.
[ December 09, 2004, 09:20 AM: Message edited by: rjprince ]
Isa 53, Psa 22 et.al. Yes, no doubt that there are many clear prophecies of the death of the Messiah. Clear from the pespective of hindsight.
My point was that in the OT, saints did not have to have faith in the substitionary atonement that would one day take place on the cross. They had faith in what they understood of God's revelation to that point.
The fact that even the disciples did not have a clue about the cross till afterward, indicates that OT saints were not saved on the basis of their faith in the vicarious death of a coming Messiah. The disciples did not understand, yet their names (except for the unclean one) were "written in heaven" (Luke 10:20). Jesus said, "What I do, thou knowest not now, but thou shalt know hereafter" (John 13:7). Yes, immediate interpretation fits the washing of the feet, but the appication certainly fits their understanding of the next 72+ hours very well.
1Pet 1:10-12 indicates that although the prophets delivered the message, they did not understand how to balance out the aspects of the suffering of Messiah and the glory of Messiah. Certainly the Jews of Jesus' day did not see the stigma of the cross as a fulfillment of OT prophecy. Of course, they were "not His sheep" (John 10:26).
Abraham and David were both justified (declared righteous) on the basis of their faith. Yet, there is absolutely not indication that either of them understood that Jesus would one day be the lamb that God would provide or the sacrifice that God had prepared from eternity past. Certainly Abraham's words on the mount were prophetic of the coming death of Christ. No way he understood the full significance of his utterance, IMHO.
[ December 09, 2004, 09:20 AM: Message edited by: rjprince ]
The Trinity is not taught in the OT? How about "let Us make man in Our own image" (Gen. 1:26)? When you consider that Christ was the Creator of all that is (Col. 1:16-17), and that He worked in conjunction with the Holy Spirit to do His creative work (Gen. 1:2), how can Gen. 1:26 be anything other than a reference to the Trinity? Further, have you ever done any study on the Angel of the Lord? One of the most notable examples can be taken from Ex. 3 (the burning bush). Ex. 3:2 plainly states that the Angel of the Lord (pre-incarnate Christ) appeared to Moses in a flame of fire from the midst of a bush. Yet, Ex. 3:14 says that it was "God" who cried out to Moses from the bush and said "I AM WHO I AM." Any study of the Angel of the Lord will show you that humans always addressed this Person as "God" or "Lord," and that they gave unto Him the very same worship that they were commanded to give only to Jehovah. Thus, it is inconceivable to say that the Angel of the Lord passages are not clear affirmations of the Trinity in the OT. To say that the OT doesn't teach the Trinity is very misguided and just flat out wrong!
Also, though the OT is very plain that the Trinity is a reality, what difference would it make if it were a doctrine that were pretty much confined to the NT? Would that make it any less true? The Jews knew nothing of the church, and the doctrine of the church is not explained until the NT, so does that mean that entrance into the Body of Christ is not necessary for one's salvation?
The real foundational issue here is that if you say that Jesus is not fully God, then He couldn't have possibly made perfect, everlasting atonement for the sins of mankind! There is a reason that John says that "the Word was God" (Jn. 1:1). By the way, John 1:1 actually reads like this in the Greek:
En arche ain ho logos, kai ho logos ain pros ton theon, kai theos ain ho logos .
Do you see the difference contained in the words in italics? The first two clauses place primary emphasis on the Word (logos), but the last clause places primary emphasis upon God (theos). Greeks would often change the order of words in order to state emphasis, and so it is in this verse. Under the inspiration of the Holy Spirit, John choice to place "God" at the beginning of the last clause in order to PLAINLY EMPHASIZE THE DEITY OF CHRIST. And like I said, there is a good reason that John did this. If you say that Jesus was fully man, but that He wasn't fully God, there is no way that He could've possibly made perfect, everlasting atonement between a holy God and sinful men.
To make the point, consider this illustration. Let's say a man's house is flooding because of heavy rains - so bad is the flood that the man is forced to the roof of his house to avoid drowning. As he makes his way to the roof, he takes a 6ft. ladder with him that he hopes will give him some extra height should he need it. Emergency crews learn of this man's plight, and as soon as they can they send a helicopter to his house to try and rescue him. There's only one problem though: Because of the raging winds and fierce waters, they are told that they can't get within 15 ft. of the man, and of course that creates a problem because the man only has a 6 ft. ladder. Sadly, the man drowns because his ladder simply was not able to reach the helicopter that longed to save him.
Here's the point: If you say that Jesus Christ was fully human, but that He was not fully God, you are left with a so-called Savior whose sacrificial work can't possibly reach God. Thus, while Christ could've died for sins, His death certainly couldn't provide the necessary atonement for their sins, and mankind is still left with no hope for salvation.
Consequently, this is the false Christ of the J.W.'s, the Mormons, and nearly every other cult group. Are you prepared to say that they are on their way to heaven just because they "believe in Jesus?"
Wow, this is pretty ridiculous. So, all I have to do is "believe in Jesus" in order to be saved. Cult groups will be relieved to know that it matters not what they believe about Jesus, just that they've got the right name. What if I said that I believed in a Jesus that wasn't sinless - according to your logic, belief in such a "Jesus" would be perfectly fine for salvation. What if I believed in a Jesus who had extra-marital affairs with Mary, Martha, and many others while on earth - according to your logic, belief in such a Jesus would be fine, wouldn't it?
Further, this statement is so thoroughly Calvinistic, it sounds like people don't have to do anything at all in order to be saved! Since it is all just up to God anyway, then I'll just hope that God picks me, right? This is very disheartening. I hope you don't actually think that this is how salvation works! Following your own logic, how could you possibly know if you are saved? If it were solely the work of God apart from anything to do with man's volition, then how could anyone know that they're saved?
Are you sure about that? Then why did God use the faiths of Abraham and David as picture of what NT faith is to be like (Rm. 4:1-8)? To make a statement like this is to say that the object of their faith was not the same as ours. In other words, they believed in a different God than we do. Is that really what you want to assert? I'll be the first to admit that the Trinity is not explained with all the same detail in the OT as it is in the NT, but that doesn't mean that Abraham, Isaac, Jacob (who you'll remember wrestled with pre-incarnate Christ at Jabbok), David, and all the other OT believers didn't have a sufficient understanding of the Trinity. If you say that the object of their faith was different from ours, then you have OT believers placing their faith in a different God from NT believers? Do you really want to say that?
[ December 09, 2004, 02:57 PM: Message edited by: Todd ]
Look at the context of the quote. I said, “OT faith was not sufficient for salvation, once Jesus died on the cross. The disciples of John at Ephesus had to transition from OT faith to NT faith in the death, burial, and resurrection of the Lord Jesus.”
Prior to the cross, OT was all there was. Of course it was sufficient. After the cross, OT saints who heard the Gospel had to make the transition to faith in the death burial and resurrection of the Lord Jesus Christ. Would you suggest that an Old Testament saint would or could reject the Deity of the Lord Jesus and still be saved?
The whole point of Romans 4 is that they were justified on the basis of their faith apart from works. That is central to the texts. Abraham and David did not know about the death, burial and resurrection of Jesus Christ (what Paul defines as the gospel). They could not have believed in the same gospel that is preached post-cross. (I guess I could really mix things up if I talked about the differences in the gospel that Jesus and the apostles preached before the cross, to the Jews only for a time, and the gospel preached after the cross, to every creature!) We have faith like they had faith, but our faith is not the same as their faith as to content.
I am well aware of the Theophanies/Christophanies in the OT. I am also well aware of the indications of the Trinity in the OT. NONE of this changes the fact that the Trinity was NOT UNDERSTOOD IN THE OT!!! The presence of advanced mathematics textbooks on our bookshelves does not mean that I understand how to work diffy-Qs. My wife is the math teacher, not me.
AND YES, I am absolutely certain that I want to make the assertion THAT THE CONTENT OF THEIR FAITH WAS NOT THE SAME AS OURS. Nice attempt at bait and switch or setting up a straw man. Easier for you to shoot down the idea that they believed in a different God than we do - not so easy for you to show where I said that. I never said that the OBJECT of their faith was different, I said that the CONTENT of their faith was different.
I stand by the statement. It is based on clear teaching and example in the Word of God. Did you even look up Acts 19? The disciples of John had believed the gospel of the kingdom and were baptized according to John’s baptism – OH, LOOK AT THIS WILL YOU, “We have not so much as heard whether there be any Holy Ghost.” Kinda hard to argue understanding of the Trinity from that one.
And yes, I do want to suggest that Abraham, David, etc did not have an understanding of the Trinity. The fact that the OT reflects a shadow of the Trinity is not the same as understanding. I would suggest that the burden of proof rests with you to find EVEN ONE OT saint who demonstrates an understanding of the Trinity - Father, Son, and Holy Spirit. Even if you could do that, you would still have to show that many OT saints understood the Trinity if you expect you contentions to stand. No way.
Prior to the cross, OT was all there was. Of course it was sufficient. After the cross, OT saints who heard the Gospel had to make the transition to faith in the death burial and resurrection of the Lord Jesus Christ. Would you suggest that an Old Testament saint would or could reject the Deity of the Lord Jesus and still be saved?
The whole point of Romans 4 is that they were justified on the basis of their faith apart from works. That is central to the texts. Abraham and David did not know about the death, burial and resurrection of Jesus Christ (what Paul defines as the gospel). They could not have believed in the same gospel that is preached post-cross. (I guess I could really mix things up if I talked about the differences in the gospel that Jesus and the apostles preached before the cross, to the Jews only for a time, and the gospel preached after the cross, to every creature!) We have faith like they had faith, but our faith is not the same as their faith as to content.
I am well aware of the Theophanies/Christophanies in the OT. I am also well aware of the indications of the Trinity in the OT. NONE of this changes the fact that the Trinity was NOT UNDERSTOOD IN THE OT!!! The presence of advanced mathematics textbooks on our bookshelves does not mean that I understand how to work diffy-Qs. My wife is the math teacher, not me.
AND YES, I am absolutely certain that I want to make the assertion THAT THE CONTENT OF THEIR FAITH WAS NOT THE SAME AS OURS. Nice attempt at bait and switch or setting up a straw man. Easier for you to shoot down the idea that they believed in a different God than we do - not so easy for you to show where I said that. I never said that the OBJECT of their faith was different, I said that the CONTENT of their faith was different.
I stand by the statement. It is based on clear teaching and example in the Word of God. Did you even look up Acts 19? The disciples of John had believed the gospel of the kingdom and were baptized according to John’s baptism – OH, LOOK AT THIS WILL YOU, “We have not so much as heard whether there be any Holy Ghost.” Kinda hard to argue understanding of the Trinity from that one.
And yes, I do want to suggest that Abraham, David, etc did not have an understanding of the Trinity. The fact that the OT reflects a shadow of the Trinity is not the same as understanding. I would suggest that the burden of proof rests with you to find EVEN ONE OT saint who demonstrates an understanding of the Trinity - Father, Son, and Holy Spirit. Even if you could do that, you would still have to show that many OT saints understood the Trinity if you expect you contentions to stand. No way.
Granted and I am inclined to agree.
However there may have been special individual revelation, for instance
John 8:56 Your father Abraham rejoiced to see my day: and he saw it, and was glad.
From day 1 of sin abounding the Seed of the Woman or the coming Messiah (known by different names/titles, deliverer, kinsman redeemer) had been promised and preached.
But I agree that in the OT the cross was probably not preached accept by allusion:
Psalm 22:16 For dogs have compassed me: the assembly of the wicked have inclosed me: they pierced my hands and my feet.
Zechariah 12:10 And I will pour upon the house of David, and upon the inhabitants of Jerusalem, the spirit of grace and of supplications: and they shall look upon me whom they have pierced, and they shall mourn for him, as one mourneth for his only son, and shall be in bitterness for him, as one that is in bitterness for his firstborn.
HankD
RJ, your statement is self-contradictory. You say that salvation comes through "faith in the substiutionary atonement," but you fail to understand that if Christ is not fully God, then there is no substiutionary atonement! If someone doesn't believe Jesus Christ is fully God and fully man, then they can't possibly be saved. According to the logic of your above statements, then we have no grounds by which we can say that the "Christ" of the cults is not perfectly acceptable for salvation. It's hard for me to believe that this discussion is even necessary - isn't this supposed to be a Baptist Board? You may not be willing to suggest that "someone who denied the Trinity is lost," but how can you possibly say that someone who will not accept those things that Christ taught about Himself can even possibly be saved? There was a group of guys at the end of John 6 who thought that they were followers of Christ, yet when they would not accept all of His teachings, they proved that they were never really His followers to begin with, and thus they turned their backs on him (John 6:60ff). Likewise, someone can't just say "I believe in Jesus and His substiutionary atonement" if they deny His full deity, for if He is not fully God then His sacrificial death on the cross was pointless. This is the very reason that Baptists have taken the lead in evangelizing J.W.'s, Mormons, and other cult groups. Are you suggesting that we stop our evangelistic efforts towards the folks in those groups since they believe in the "substitutionary atonement" of Jesus Christ?
Really, then why did Jesus warn his NT hearers against it? Why do we have two references in the Book of Revelation that speak of the anti-Christ (Rev. 13:6 & 17:3) and his blasphemy against God? Why are the NT letters filled with injunctions against the sin of blashemy (1 Tim. 6:1, Ti. 2:5, 1 Pt. 4:14, 2 Pt. 2:2, just to name a few)? Where do you guys come up with this stuff?
Really? Did you happen to read Acts 10:36 - "The word which God sent to the children of Israel, preaching peace through Jesus Christ - He is the Lord of all ." How about v.38 of that same chapter which mentions by name each member of the Trinity - "how God anointed Jesus of Nazareth with the Holy Spirit and with power...". How about v.42 of that same chapter - "And He commanded us to preach to the people, and to testify that it is He who was ordained by God to be Judge of the Living and the Dead." Within Peter's message (and this may not even be all that Peter said to Cornelius), we have a clear reference to the Triune God.
Actually, you would be attempting to refer to the Philippian jailor and his family. How about Acts 16:31 - "Believe on the Lord Jesus Christ , and you will be saved, you and your household." Paul makes sure that the jailor understands that Jesus Christ is God in the way he presents the Gospel to the jailor - that would be an affirmation of the Trinity.
RJ, the substitutionary atonement is not the object of our faith - God is. It was through the atonement that remission of sins can now be provided, but that remission of sins is only applied to those who have made the Triune God of the Bible the object of their faith. That's why Paul uses the faith of Abraham and David as a picture of what our faith is to be - "Abraham believed God and it was accounted to him for righteousness" (Rom. 4:3). To say that OT and NT believers have different objects of faith is to say that they essentially worship different Gods - this simply can't be so.
RJ, they may not have understood all the particulars of the atonement, but surely they knew that Christ would be the Messiah that would take away the sins of the world (as John the Baptist understood even though he was never a witness to the cross). For them, it must've been much like my present understanding of gravity. I certainly don't understand the particulars of gravity, but I trust that it is real. Those OT belivers may not have known every detail that would surround the passion of Christ, but they didn't need to know all the details in order to understand that Christ would lay down his life as an atoning sacrifice for the sins of the Israel and all the world.
I go back to the original question of this post: Does someone have to believe in the Trinity in order to be saved? Someone obviously doesn't have to understand all the dynamics of the Trinity (as no mortal man can understand the fullness of the Trinity), but one must surely believe that Jesus Christ is the Second Person of the Godhead in order to be saved. How can someone say that they have satisfactory faith in Jesus if they're not even familiar with who He said He was? The easy-believism of the 21st century has led us away from emphasizing orthodox Christology, but things have not changed since the first century. Either we will believe that Jesus is who He said He is and be saved (Jn. 6:68-69), or we will reject His claims of full deity and be cast into hell when we stand before Him in judgment (Jn. 6:60-66).
According to the logic of some here on this thread, the "Christ" of Islam is sufficient for salvation. Muslims certainly believe in Jesus, and they recognize Him as a "great prophet" - does that mean they're going to be saved? They don't believe that He is the second Person of the Trinity, but according to some posting here that is not a problem. Let's think about what we're saying here.
Who says that OT believers didn't understand the Trinity? That had more than sufficient Scriptural and extra-Scriptural revelation to help them understand the doctrine of the Trinity. If they didn't understand it, then the fact remains that they were placing their faith in a different God than we do today.
Wow, talk about taking a passage out of its context just to try an make an unbiblical point. The men at Ephesus were not believers in Christ when they made the statement that you referenced in Acts 19:2. Was it just by coincidence that you didn't quote the verses that were immediately following, or did you just choose to leave them out?
"And he said to them, 'Into what then were you baptized?' So they said, 'Into John's baptism.' Then Paul said, 'John indeed baptized with a baptism of repentance, saying to the people that they should believe on Him who would come after him, that is, on Christ Jesus.' When they heard this , they were baptized in the name of the Lord Jesus. And when Paul laid hands on them, the Holy Sprit came upon them, and they spoke with tongues and prophesied." (Acts 19:3-6)
Obviously, the men of whom you spoke in v.2 were not already Christians, for if they had been, Paul would not have baptized them in v.5. These men had believed the testimony of John the Baptist, but they had never placed their faith in the Second Person of the Godhead. Once they did, they became partakers of the Holy Spirit. You say that the men of v.2 were disciples of John (which they were), but that certainly doesn't mean that they had believed the Gospel of Jesus Christ, for if they had there would have been no reason for them to have been baptized in v.5. Don't draw Scripture out of its context.
How about Moses? Did he not write down the Pentateuch as He was led by the inspiration of God? If it clearly teaches the doctrine of the Trinity (which it does), then how can you say that He didn't have a clear understanding of the Trinity? How about Jacob? Didn't he wrestle with pre-incarnate Christ? Wouldn't that necessitate an understanding of the Trinity?
I don't have to do any such thing. Just because the Bible may not give us a list of OT saints who explicitely stated their understanding of the Trinity, that doesn't mean that they didn't understand the vital doctrine. That's something that you have contrived in your own mind. Further, I can't provide you with a list of NT saints who explicitely stated their understanding of the Trinity and wrote it in the Word of God - does that mean that they didn't have a full understanding? Clearly, I don't have to do any such thing.
Craigbythesea
Well-Known Member
Todd wrote,
“Jesus Christ is fully man"? In order for the content of this statement to be true, it would be necessary for the Messiah to be fully capable of sinning (as ALL men are), but if He sinned, He could not be the Messiah!
“Jesus Christ is fully God"? In order for the content of this statement to be true, it would be necessary for Jesus to be the Supreme Being, and yet Jesus consistently obeyed His Father!
We have here the greatest paradox in the entire Bible, and yet Todd would have us to accept that it is NECESSARY to understand it and believe it for one to be saved. Or is it enough to believe it but NOT understand it? But if you don’t understand that which you are believing . . . .
It is precisely because of such nonsense being preached by some Baptist pastors that I have strongly argued in another thread that the call to the pastorate includes the call to a good education comparable in both quality and quantity to that required of EVERY medical doctor. If our Baptist churches would demand of their pastors such an education, we would not find Baptist pastors teaching such bizarre nonsense.
For those who would like to better understand this paradox, may I suggest the reading of The Two Natures in Christ by Martin Chemnitz. This book devotes only 542 pages to this subject, but it includes hundreds of references to other material on the subject and is extensively indexed.
For those who would like to study the humanity of Christ and how His humanity was understood and taught up to 1900, may I suggest the reading of The Humility of Christ by Alexander Balmain Bruce. This 457 page volume includes a helpful index. It is, however, written for seminary graduates who are fluent in English, Latin, Hebrew, Greek, and German, but those of you with a seminary education will find this book to be most enjoyable and edifying reading.
For those interested in the person of Christ in the Old Testament, may I suggest the reading of Christology of the Old Testament by E. W. Hengstenberg. This is, I believe, the best 1396 page introductory text on this subject available even though it was written more than 100 years ago.
For those interested in the doctrine of the atonement of Christ, may I suggest The Doctrine of The Atonement by George Smeaton. This 502 page book is well indexed and very readable.
All four of these books are widely available in university and seminary libraries and can be purchased on the NET.
I can understand how Todd believes the statement that “Jesus Christ is fully God and fully man,” but I can NOT understand how Todd can believe what this statement says, for it is a paradox that even the greatest theological minds find quite baffling. And I find it rather odd that any “Baptist” pastor would teach that belief in the statement is necessary for salvation but belief in the content of the statement is not. What could possibly be more ludicrous?
“Jesus Christ is fully man"? In order for the content of this statement to be true, it would be necessary for the Messiah to be fully capable of sinning (as ALL men are), but if He sinned, He could not be the Messiah!
“Jesus Christ is fully God"? In order for the content of this statement to be true, it would be necessary for Jesus to be the Supreme Being, and yet Jesus consistently obeyed His Father!
We have here the greatest paradox in the entire Bible, and yet Todd would have us to accept that it is NECESSARY to understand it and believe it for one to be saved. Or is it enough to believe it but NOT understand it? But if you don’t understand that which you are believing . . . .
It is precisely because of such nonsense being preached by some Baptist pastors that I have strongly argued in another thread that the call to the pastorate includes the call to a good education comparable in both quality and quantity to that required of EVERY medical doctor. If our Baptist churches would demand of their pastors such an education, we would not find Baptist pastors teaching such bizarre nonsense.
For those who would like to better understand this paradox, may I suggest the reading of The Two Natures in Christ by Martin Chemnitz. This book devotes only 542 pages to this subject, but it includes hundreds of references to other material on the subject and is extensively indexed.
For those who would like to study the humanity of Christ and how His humanity was understood and taught up to 1900, may I suggest the reading of The Humility of Christ by Alexander Balmain Bruce. This 457 page volume includes a helpful index. It is, however, written for seminary graduates who are fluent in English, Latin, Hebrew, Greek, and German, but those of you with a seminary education will find this book to be most enjoyable and edifying reading.
For those interested in the person of Christ in the Old Testament, may I suggest the reading of Christology of the Old Testament by E. W. Hengstenberg. This is, I believe, the best 1396 page introductory text on this subject available even though it was written more than 100 years ago.
For those interested in the doctrine of the atonement of Christ, may I suggest The Doctrine of The Atonement by George Smeaton. This 502 page book is well indexed and very readable.
All four of these books are widely available in university and seminary libraries and can be purchased on the NET.
Craigbythesea
Well-Known Member
I do! And so does EVERY Baptist scholar whom I have ever read on the subject!
Torn between Craig and Todd on this one. I don't think it is necessary for there to be a full understanding of PSA and associated Christology to be saved (otherwise those with learning difficulties or young children couldn't be saved - heck, it took 400 years for the finest minds in the church to fully work out their Christology - are we really saying they were all damned before Chalcedon?); but by the same token if someone absorbs or espouses a false Christology, then in my view that would imperil their salvation (back to giraffes vs. elephants) - otherwise JWs, Christadelphians, Mormons, yea even Jews and Muslims could be automatically saved.
Yours in Christ
Matt
Yours in Christ
Matt
Craigbythesea
Well-Known Member
How "false" is false. There are at least several different Christology’s being taught in Baptist churches; and certainly the Christology of the Roman Catholic, Orthodox, Episcopal, Lutheran, Methodist, and Presbyterian churches is different from most Baptist churches.
And where in the Bible do we find Jesus telling anyone to get their Christology right so that they might enter into His Kingdom? Jesus was concerned about the sort of faith in Him that resulted in repentance from sin rather than the sort of faith that got all their theological ducks in a row.
The last time I heard the expression, “Get right with God,” it did NOT mean to get your Christology right; it meant to repent of your sin!
Acts 16:30. and after he brought them out, he said, "Sirs, what must I do to be saved?"
31. They said, "Believe in the Lord Jesus, and you will be saved, you and your household." (NASB, 1995)
Acts 16:30. and after he brought them out, he said, "Sirs, what must I do to be saved?"
31. They said, "Believe in the Christology taught in Todd’s Baptist Church, and you will be saved, you and your household." (NASB, 1995, edited by Todd, 2004)
Craigbythesea
Well-Known Member
It has been brought to my attention that this post includes a serious typographical error for which I most humbly apologize. The correct name of this book is The Humiliation of Christ.
Originally posted by Craigbythesea:
Can you elaborate on that? AFAIK, the Christology taught by most Baptist churches is the same as that taught by Catholics, Orthodox, Presbyterians etc ie orthodoxHow "false" is false. There are at least several different Christology’s being taught in Baptist churches; and certainly the Christology of the Roman Catholic, Orthodox, Episcopal, Lutheran, Methodist, and Presbyterian churches is different from most Baptist churches.
Yours in Christ
Matt
Actually for me Todd, believing on Jesus is one of the things in my life which is absolutely effortless. It's easier than breathing for me.
I personally prefer the term "phoney-believism" for those who know about Jesus Christ and practice "churchianity" but who don't know Him Himself in the biblical sense of absolute trust and adoration.
On the other hand, we should not abandon the tares as God is able to change the tares to wheat.
HankD
Wow, gotta post fast on this board, or everyone else beats you to the punch!
Todd,
I see no self contradiction other than what you have attempted to create. I neither suggest nor give any indication that Jesus is not fully God. Neither do I fail to understand the connection between the Deity of Jesus and His vicarious suffering.
What you fail to understand is that although a correct understanding of the Trinity involves proper understanding of the Deity of Christ, the corollary is NOT necessarily true. A person could learn about the Deity of Jesus AND His substitutionary atonement prior to being taught about the Trinity! Just how much should we attempt to teach unbelievers before we teach them that they are sinners, that Jesus died for their sin, and there is no other way to escape the wrath of God other than personal faith in the Lord Jesus Christ? The Holy Spirit does not convict unbelievers of the truth of the Trinity, He convicts them of sin, righteousness, and judgement (John 16:8-11).
Where did I say that I do not accept the full Deity of Christ? Where did I say that someone could reject the deity of Christ and be saved? The Deity of Christ is not dependant on a proper understanding of the Trinity. Linking my statements to the cults? You have got to be kidding! Talk about smoke and mirrors! Oh well, if you cannot respond in substance, might as well start name calling.
The unpardonable sin was not “blasphemy” in general as in the references you cited. It was “blasphemy against the Holy Ghost”. In context, Jesus is speaking to the Pharisees regarding their statement that He was doing His miracles in the power of Beelzebub. That is not the blasphemy that is spoken of in any the references you cited. In fact, in the context of what we call the “unpardonable sin”, Jesus tells them that “all manner of sin and blasphemy SHALL be forgiven” with the exception of “blasphemy against the Holy Ghost”. “Where does this guy come up with that”, you ask, from interpreting the Word of God in a literal grammatical historical contextual sense. In none of the references you cited regarding blasphemy there is any indication that the sin in unforgiveable to men. I do not suggest that blasphemy is not a sin, only that it is forgiveable. The sin that shall not be forgiven in this age or in the age to come was rejecting the Spirit’s testimony about the Lord Jesus. The miracles demonstrated that Jesus was the Messiah, their God who had come to deliver them (Isa 35). Thus, I repeat, THE unpardonable sin cannot be committed today. It is true that final rejection of the Lord Jesus is unpardonable. He is the only way, truth, and life. Yet that is not the same as THE unpardonable sin of blasphemy against the Holy Spirit’s testimony to Jesus while He walked on earth.
SO, WHILE IT IS TRUE THAT ACCEPTING THE ANTI-CHRIST AND REJECTING CHRIST FINALLY IS UNPARDONABLE. IT IS NOT TRUE THAT THIS IS THE SAME SIN THAT JESUS WAS ADDRESSING IN MATT 12.
A mention of the Trinity before their salvation in Acts 10? I should have been more clear, there was no TEACHING about the Trinity in Acts 10. The focus of the message was on the sacrifice of Jesus for their sin. The mention of God (not called “the Father”), the Holy Spirit, and Jesus (“Lord of all”, not called “the Son”) is hardly equal to teaching on the Trinity, nor would such references even provide a basic elemental understanding to someone who did not read the text with a fuller understanding of the Trinity.
So I still maintain that an understanding of the Trinity is not essential to salvation. The Holy Spirit does not convict unbelievers about the truth of the Tri-unity of the Godhead (see John 16:8-11).
Thank you for you correction re the “Philippian” jailor. Yet, I fail to find any reference to the Trinity in the passage. Yes, I do see the Deity of Jesus there, but I failed to find any reference to the Father or the Holy Spirit. Reading the Trinity into this passage is eisogesis par excellance – none finer.
“Object of our faith” – we already dealt with your attempt to substitute OBJECT for CONTENT. Why do you repeat the same argument? I agree that God is the object of their faith. I do not agree that the cross was the content of OT faith, that was my whole point!
The fact that John describes Jesus as “the Lamb of God who taketh away the sin of the world” is not an indication that he understood that “Christ would lay down his life as an atoning sacrifice for the sins of the Israel and all the world”! AS ALREADY NOTED, EVEN THE 11 FAILED TO GRASP THIS CONCEPT!!! Peter was still fighting the idea in Gethsemane! How can you impute such understanding to John the Baptist. When John was in prison he even began to doubt whether or not Jesus was indeed the Messiah! Yet, you suggest that he UNDERSTOOD that Jesus “would lay down his life as an atoning sacrifice for the sins of the Israel and all the world.” Ludicrous, and more importantly, UNSUBSTANTIATED.
You say, “one must surely believe that Jesus Christ is the Second Person of the Godhead in order to be saved”. I do not find that stated anywhere in the Bible. I do find that Jesus is God the Son pretty clearly taught, but again, understanding that Jesus is God the Son is not equivalent to understanding the Trinity. To be sure, while all three persons of the Godhead are critical to a persons salvation, an understanding of this is not PREREQUISITE to salvation. That is my contention.
You asked, “How can someone say that they have satisfactory faith in Jesus if they're not even familiar with who He said He was?” Again, this goes back to the Deity of Christ, not the Trinity. “Easy believism”!!! Well, if you can’t talk about what I said, just go ahead and talk about anything else you want. If you make another unrelated statement that is clearly accepted as truth, then I MUST be wrong about what I said. Ditto the Islam Jesus comment. Since Moslems accept Jesus as a great prophet but not the son of God, then my comments on the Trinity not being a prerequisite to salvation must certainly be heresy from the pit of hell.
YOUR NEXT POST:
QUOTE: “Who says that OT believers didn't understand the Trinity? That had more than sufficient Scriptural and extra-Scriptural revelation to help them understand the doctrine of the Trinity. If they didn't understand it, then the fact remains that they were placing their faith in a different God than we do today.”
WOW! I can’t believe you just said that OT saints who failed to understand the Trinity were placing their faith in a different God. AND, that such essential faith is to be gained, at least partly, from extra-biblical revelation! I assume you draw this conclusion from Rom 1:20 – “even His eternal power and Godhead”? From a noun that appears once in the GNT you conclude “Trinity”? Do you maintain that creation is sufficient to gain even a general understanding of the Trinity? Again, WOW. No other word seems quite sufficient to express my sentiment regarding your statement.
Acts 19, out of context? Let’s look at it. These men were “disciples” who had been baptized “unto John’s baptism”. Of course they were not “Christians”! They had not heard the new CONTENT of the gospel! They had heard the “gospel of the kingdom” and the fact that John baptized them indicates their acceptance. These were OLD TESTAMENT saints. They had faith in God, but not faith in the death, burial, and resurrection of the Lord Jesus! Seems like this a point I was trying to make earlier. Do you now accept my contention that OT saints did not understand the substitutionary atonement? Probably not, but I will continue. These Old Testament saints naturally transitioned to faith in Jesus when they heard the gospel of salvation by grace through faith in the Lord Jesus. They believed and received the Holy Spirit as a seal confirming their salvation, and for the third and final time in Acts, those who received the Spirit spoke in tongues.
Where did I take this out of context? Oh I know, it must be because a contextual literal grammatical historical interpretation does not fit the theology you are maintaining at this point. Even so, please note that as disciples of John, Old Testament saints if you will, they had no knowledge of the Holy Ghost. I repeat my earlier statement which you quoted, “Kinda hard to argue understanding of the Trinity from that one.”
The fact that Moses wrote the Pentateuch does not prove that he understood the Trinity! Even if there was CLEAR teaching on the Trinity in the Torah, that would not prove that Moses understood it. THE PROPHETS DID NOT UNDERSTAND HOW THE SUFFERING OF THE MESSIAH FIT WITH THE GLORY OF THE MESSIAH!!! Earlier I just gave the reference, here is the whole passage:
“Of which salvation the prophets have enquired and searched diligently, who prophesied of the grace that should come unto you: Searching what, or what manner of time the Spirit of Christ which was in them did signify, when it testified beforehand the sufferings of Christ, and the glory that should follow. Unto whom it was revealed, that not unto themselves, but unto us they did minister the things, which are now reported unto you by them that have preached the gospel unto you with the Holy Ghost sent down from heaven; which things the angels desire to look into.” 1Pet 1:10-12
Finally, show me CLEAR teaching of the doctrine of the Trinity in Moses, or in the entire OT if you will. YES, there are references, shadows, and intimations – CLEAR teaching of even a rudimentary teaching as to the relationship between Father, Son, and Spirit – NOT THERE!
Todd,
I see no self contradiction other than what you have attempted to create. I neither suggest nor give any indication that Jesus is not fully God. Neither do I fail to understand the connection between the Deity of Jesus and His vicarious suffering.
What you fail to understand is that although a correct understanding of the Trinity involves proper understanding of the Deity of Christ, the corollary is NOT necessarily true. A person could learn about the Deity of Jesus AND His substitutionary atonement prior to being taught about the Trinity! Just how much should we attempt to teach unbelievers before we teach them that they are sinners, that Jesus died for their sin, and there is no other way to escape the wrath of God other than personal faith in the Lord Jesus Christ? The Holy Spirit does not convict unbelievers of the truth of the Trinity, He convicts them of sin, righteousness, and judgement (John 16:8-11).
Where did I say that I do not accept the full Deity of Christ? Where did I say that someone could reject the deity of Christ and be saved? The Deity of Christ is not dependant on a proper understanding of the Trinity. Linking my statements to the cults? You have got to be kidding! Talk about smoke and mirrors! Oh well, if you cannot respond in substance, might as well start name calling.
The unpardonable sin was not “blasphemy” in general as in the references you cited. It was “blasphemy against the Holy Ghost”. In context, Jesus is speaking to the Pharisees regarding their statement that He was doing His miracles in the power of Beelzebub. That is not the blasphemy that is spoken of in any the references you cited. In fact, in the context of what we call the “unpardonable sin”, Jesus tells them that “all manner of sin and blasphemy SHALL be forgiven” with the exception of “blasphemy against the Holy Ghost”. “Where does this guy come up with that”, you ask, from interpreting the Word of God in a literal grammatical historical contextual sense. In none of the references you cited regarding blasphemy there is any indication that the sin in unforgiveable to men. I do not suggest that blasphemy is not a sin, only that it is forgiveable. The sin that shall not be forgiven in this age or in the age to come was rejecting the Spirit’s testimony about the Lord Jesus. The miracles demonstrated that Jesus was the Messiah, their God who had come to deliver them (Isa 35). Thus, I repeat, THE unpardonable sin cannot be committed today. It is true that final rejection of the Lord Jesus is unpardonable. He is the only way, truth, and life. Yet that is not the same as THE unpardonable sin of blasphemy against the Holy Spirit’s testimony to Jesus while He walked on earth.
SO, WHILE IT IS TRUE THAT ACCEPTING THE ANTI-CHRIST AND REJECTING CHRIST FINALLY IS UNPARDONABLE. IT IS NOT TRUE THAT THIS IS THE SAME SIN THAT JESUS WAS ADDRESSING IN MATT 12.
A mention of the Trinity before their salvation in Acts 10? I should have been more clear, there was no TEACHING about the Trinity in Acts 10. The focus of the message was on the sacrifice of Jesus for their sin. The mention of God (not called “the Father”), the Holy Spirit, and Jesus (“Lord of all”, not called “the Son”) is hardly equal to teaching on the Trinity, nor would such references even provide a basic elemental understanding to someone who did not read the text with a fuller understanding of the Trinity.
So I still maintain that an understanding of the Trinity is not essential to salvation. The Holy Spirit does not convict unbelievers about the truth of the Tri-unity of the Godhead (see John 16:8-11).
Thank you for you correction re the “Philippian” jailor. Yet, I fail to find any reference to the Trinity in the passage. Yes, I do see the Deity of Jesus there, but I failed to find any reference to the Father or the Holy Spirit. Reading the Trinity into this passage is eisogesis par excellance – none finer.
“Object of our faith” – we already dealt with your attempt to substitute OBJECT for CONTENT. Why do you repeat the same argument? I agree that God is the object of their faith. I do not agree that the cross was the content of OT faith, that was my whole point!
The fact that John describes Jesus as “the Lamb of God who taketh away the sin of the world” is not an indication that he understood that “Christ would lay down his life as an atoning sacrifice for the sins of the Israel and all the world”! AS ALREADY NOTED, EVEN THE 11 FAILED TO GRASP THIS CONCEPT!!! Peter was still fighting the idea in Gethsemane! How can you impute such understanding to John the Baptist. When John was in prison he even began to doubt whether or not Jesus was indeed the Messiah! Yet, you suggest that he UNDERSTOOD that Jesus “would lay down his life as an atoning sacrifice for the sins of the Israel and all the world.” Ludicrous, and more importantly, UNSUBSTANTIATED.
You say, “one must surely believe that Jesus Christ is the Second Person of the Godhead in order to be saved”. I do not find that stated anywhere in the Bible. I do find that Jesus is God the Son pretty clearly taught, but again, understanding that Jesus is God the Son is not equivalent to understanding the Trinity. To be sure, while all three persons of the Godhead are critical to a persons salvation, an understanding of this is not PREREQUISITE to salvation. That is my contention.
You asked, “How can someone say that they have satisfactory faith in Jesus if they're not even familiar with who He said He was?” Again, this goes back to the Deity of Christ, not the Trinity. “Easy believism”!!! Well, if you can’t talk about what I said, just go ahead and talk about anything else you want. If you make another unrelated statement that is clearly accepted as truth, then I MUST be wrong about what I said. Ditto the Islam Jesus comment. Since Moslems accept Jesus as a great prophet but not the son of God, then my comments on the Trinity not being a prerequisite to salvation must certainly be heresy from the pit of hell.
YOUR NEXT POST:
QUOTE: “Who says that OT believers didn't understand the Trinity? That had more than sufficient Scriptural and extra-Scriptural revelation to help them understand the doctrine of the Trinity. If they didn't understand it, then the fact remains that they were placing their faith in a different God than we do today.”
WOW! I can’t believe you just said that OT saints who failed to understand the Trinity were placing their faith in a different God. AND, that such essential faith is to be gained, at least partly, from extra-biblical revelation! I assume you draw this conclusion from Rom 1:20 – “even His eternal power and Godhead”? From a noun that appears once in the GNT you conclude “Trinity”? Do you maintain that creation is sufficient to gain even a general understanding of the Trinity? Again, WOW. No other word seems quite sufficient to express my sentiment regarding your statement.
Acts 19, out of context? Let’s look at it. These men were “disciples” who had been baptized “unto John’s baptism”. Of course they were not “Christians”! They had not heard the new CONTENT of the gospel! They had heard the “gospel of the kingdom” and the fact that John baptized them indicates their acceptance. These were OLD TESTAMENT saints. They had faith in God, but not faith in the death, burial, and resurrection of the Lord Jesus! Seems like this a point I was trying to make earlier. Do you now accept my contention that OT saints did not understand the substitutionary atonement? Probably not, but I will continue. These Old Testament saints naturally transitioned to faith in Jesus when they heard the gospel of salvation by grace through faith in the Lord Jesus. They believed and received the Holy Spirit as a seal confirming their salvation, and for the third and final time in Acts, those who received the Spirit spoke in tongues.
Where did I take this out of context? Oh I know, it must be because a contextual literal grammatical historical interpretation does not fit the theology you are maintaining at this point. Even so, please note that as disciples of John, Old Testament saints if you will, they had no knowledge of the Holy Ghost. I repeat my earlier statement which you quoted, “Kinda hard to argue understanding of the Trinity from that one.”
The fact that Moses wrote the Pentateuch does not prove that he understood the Trinity! Even if there was CLEAR teaching on the Trinity in the Torah, that would not prove that Moses understood it. THE PROPHETS DID NOT UNDERSTAND HOW THE SUFFERING OF THE MESSIAH FIT WITH THE GLORY OF THE MESSIAH!!! Earlier I just gave the reference, here is the whole passage:
“Of which salvation the prophets have enquired and searched diligently, who prophesied of the grace that should come unto you: Searching what, or what manner of time the Spirit of Christ which was in them did signify, when it testified beforehand the sufferings of Christ, and the glory that should follow. Unto whom it was revealed, that not unto themselves, but unto us they did minister the things, which are now reported unto you by them that have preached the gospel unto you with the Holy Ghost sent down from heaven; which things the angels desire to look into.” 1Pet 1:10-12
Finally, show me CLEAR teaching of the doctrine of the Trinity in Moses, or in the entire OT if you will. YES, there are references, shadows, and intimations – CLEAR teaching of even a rudimentary teaching as to the relationship between Father, Son, and Spirit – NOT THERE!
Craig, glad to see you're ready to engage an "ignorant lunatic" like me again. Here's the obvious problem with your statement: Just because Christ was capable of sin doesn't necessitate the belief that He did sin. I just preached about this last Sunday when I affirmed both the full humanity and the sinlessness of Jesus Christ. I used this example: Let's say I go fishing. I've got my boat, rod & reel, tackle box, bait, etc. I'm perfectly capable of catching a fish, but I decide to do something very unorthodox. Rather than baiting my line and casting it into the water, I decide that I'm going to sit and wait for the fish to jump in the boat. Am I capable of catching fish? Yep! Will I catch a fish? Nope! What's the point? Just because I am fully capable of doing something doesn't mean that it will ever be done. And so it is with the full humanity and sinlessness of Jesus Christ. This is elementary Christology.
Craig, I recommend that you take a course in Christian Theology if these questions are still unresolved in your mind. You're correct in asserting that Jesus would have to be the "Supreme Being" in order to be fully God, but that somehow Christ's willingness to submit Himself to the Father indicates that He couldn't possibly be equal with the Father is incorrect. Again, consider this example from Scripture - Paul says that wives are to submit to their husbands (Eph. 5:22ff). Does that mean that women are inferior to men? Absolutely not! You see, while husbands and wives may have different roles, they share the same ontological essence. That's why the Bible calls Eve a "helper comparable to him" (Gen. 2:18), and not one inferior to Him. Thus, just because Christ willingly submitted Himself to the Father, that doesn't mean that He was not equal to (or homoosious as the Council of Nicaea put it) with the Father. I hope this demonstrates the logical fallacy of your premise - submission to authority doesn't imply ontological inferiority. That's why we can say that the Jesus who said "Father, not my will but thine be done" in the Garden of Gethsemene was also fully God (John 1:1).
Not once have I said that one must know everything about the Trinity, incarnation, etc., in order to be saved. In fact, it's impossible to know everything about those things. Yet, someone must accept by faith the things that the Bible has to say about those things. The Bible plainly testifies that Jesus Christ is the Second Person of the Trinity - fully God and fully man. Someone may not understand all the intracacies of the hypostatic union (as no man can), but they must be willing to accept Christ's testimony of Himself in order to be saved. Rejection of Christ's self-testimony is tantamount to blasphemy, and we know that no blashphemer will gain entrance into the kingdom of God.
Craig, you have leveled the charge of being an "ignorant, uneducated lunatic" against me before - I guess I ought to be offended, but I just consider the source of the criticism. FYI, I received my B.A. from the University of TN in 3 1/2 years, my M.Div. from SEBTS in 3 years (where I took an entire course in Patristic Christology), and I am currently pursuing a Ph.D. from BBS in Clarks Summit, PA. If that makes me uneducated, ignorant, and a lunatic, then I guess I'm guilty.
What's really loathsome is that you would brand the views of other with whom you don't agree and can't overturn as uneducated. If I'm really that foolish, then you ought to be able to turn the arguments I have stated above back on their heads. And by the way, if you say that I represent the uneducated, then you are calling such saints as Cyril of Alexandria, Augustine, Luther, Calvin, and countless others uneducated and ignorant because they affirmed the very Christology that I am presenting to you long before we were ever born. Also, every orthodox Christian theologian would affirm the Christology that I'm presenting to you. Now, who would affirm yours...
For those who really want to understand this issue, I recommend you read what Cyril had to say about the hypostatic union some 1600+ years ago. He was instrumental in helping the Christian church define the person and work of Christ when the Council of Chalcedon wrote the most authoritative statement of Christ (outside the Bible) in the year 451 AD. In fact, if you have never studied the Councils of Nicaea (325), Constantinople (381), Ephesus (432), and Chalcedon (451), then I would heartily recommend that you do so.
So, Jacob didn't understand that He had wrestled with pre-incarnate Christ when he called the ground on which they wrestled "Peniel" (Gen. 32:30). So Moses didn't recognize the doctrine of the Trinity when he was inspired of God to write down the Pentateuch which affirms the Trinity in Gen. 1? Again, Moses didn't understand that it was Pre-incarnate Christ was said from the midst of the bush "I AM WHO I AM" (Ex. 3:14)? How about Manoah and his wife - don't you think they recognized the doctrine when they heard the Angel of the Lord say that His name was "wonderful" (Judges 13:18)? Do I need to provide more examples? Abraham, the children of Israel during the Exodus, Joshua - all of them must've recognized the Trinity through their encounter with pre-incarnate Christ.
Care to mention the names of some of your stalwart Baptist theologians Craig?
So some could believe in a sinful, immoral, undivine Christ and still demonstrate themselves to be saved as long as their life has "been changed?" If what you're saying is true, then why did the men at the end of John 6 choose to turn from Christ? If what they believed about Christ didn't really matter anyway, then why didn't Christ beckon them to stay and continue following? Hmmm...
So, John was wasting his time when he went to great lengths to clearly define the Person of Christ (Jn. 1:1, 1 Jn. 1:1ff)? If what we believe about the Person of Christ is not necessary for salvation, then why does the Bible even mention bothering those things?
Someone can say that they believe in Jesus, but what if they believe in the Jesus of Satanism, Islam, etc? Will a belief in that "Jesus" save them? Answer the questions Craig.
Matt, don't expect an answer from Craig on this one. He has already clearly demonstrated that he doesn't know even the foundational truths of orthodox Christology. He obviously doesn't know that Southern Baptists, Presbyterians, Methodists, Lutherans, and Episcopals would all affirm the Christological statement contained within the Council of Chalcedon.