What is saving faith?

[Dr. Walter]

Greetings again Dr. Walter,

Thus my answers will not be comprehensive, nor satisfy how you think on these subjects.

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!

I view “The Word” in John 1:1 as not describing a pre-existent Jesus, but a personification of God’s wisdom, character, similar to the personification of the woman “Wisdom” in Proverbs 8.

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.

I am very conscious of the need to prove all things, and hold onto that which is good.

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.

 

[WestminsterMan]

Trevor,

Salvation is represented in Scripture in three tenses (1) Past tense - saved; (2) present tense - being saved; (3) Future tense "shall be saved"

I believe salvation is designed for our whole person which is also three parts (1) spirit; (2) soul; (3) body - 1 Thes. 5:23

In regard to those three aspects of our human nature there are three corresponding aspects of salvation

1) The human spirit - "that which is spirit is born of the Spirit" - regeneration/justification/conversion. past tense "saved"

2. the human soul - the progressive salvation of the life for as a man thinketh so is he - present tense sanctification - being saved

3. the human body - future tense glorification - future tense - "shall be saved"

Wow - sounds like you view salvation as a process...

WM

 

[Dr. Walter]

Wow - sounds like you view salvation as a process...

WM

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.

 

[TrevorL]

Greetings again Dr. Walter,

I appreciate your response.

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!

I agree I have not fully answered the things that you have raised to your satisfaction. I do not agree that the scriptures condemn my view. If I have time in the next week I will give more consideration and try to respond. I do feel that you have selectively ignored some of the Scriptures that I have presented. Would you like me to highlight these as well? I simply disagree with many of your interpretations of Scripture. Both your view and my view are based on a number of foundations, differing from each other’s point of view, and we tend to interpret other Scriptures in light of these foundations.

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.

But was the woman “WISDOM” of Proverbs a separate being or person from God?
Proverbs 8:22-31 (KJV): 22 The LORD possessed me in the beginning of his way, before his works of old. 23 I was set up from everlasting, from the beginning, or ever the earth was. 24 When there were no depths, I was brought forth; when there were no fountains abounding with water. 25 Before the mountains were settled, before the hills was I brought forth: 26 While as yet he had not made the earth, nor the fields, nor the highest part of the dust of the world. 27 When he prepared the heavens, I was there: when he set a compass upon the face of the depth: 28 When he established the clouds above: when he strengthened the fountains of the deep: 29 When he gave to the sea his decree, that the waters should not pass his commandment: when he appointed the foundations of the earth: 30 Then I was by him, as one brought up with him: and I was daily his delight, rejoicing always before him; 31 Rejoicing in the habitable part of his earth; and my delights were with the sons of men.
Why, in John 1:1 does the Apostle use the word “WORD”? When you read this, you give me the impression that you simply substitute “the pre-existent Jesus” here. Consider also the use of God’s word in the following. Does Jesus proceed out of the mouth of God?
Isaiah 55:10-11 (KJV): 10 For as the rain cometh down, and the snow from heaven, and returneth not thither, but watereth the earth, and maketh it bring forth and bud, that it may give seed to the sower, and bread to the eater: 11 So shall my word be that goeth forth out of my mouth: it shall not return unto me void, but it shall accomplish that which I please, and it shall prosper in the thing whereto I sent it.

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 essentials demanded by the Scriptures. No one embracing what you believe 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.

My faith has been developed over many years, and I fellowship many with the same faith. Our hope is not in going to heaven when we die, but believe in a resurrection to inherit the kingdom upon earth when Jesus returns. So we differ on the things concerning the kingdom of God, and we have also differed on the things concerning the name of Jesus. I do not stand at your seat of judgement, but look in trust and faith to my Saviour and my God.

Kind regards
Trevor

 

[DHK]

In response to DHK: I believe that the simplest and most accurate Scriptural definitions are that there is One God, the Father and that our Lord Jesus Christ is the Son of God and some of these Scriptures I have quoted. Other Scriptures, some of which you have mentioned, must be considered in the light of these primary Scriptural definitions. These additional Scriptures add to an understanding of the full status and role of the Lord Jesus Christ.

Kind regards
Trevor

The matter is very simple. To come out and say: "Jesus is God," is a very simple statement. To skirt around that issue is what the cults do. Even the Muslims refuse to say, "Christ is God," but will only admit, "Christ is the Son of God." In essence it is a denial of his deity.

How serious is this:

Hereby know ye the Spirit of God: Every spirit that confesseth that Jesus Christ is come in the flesh is of God:
3 And every spirit that confesseth not that Jesus Christ is come in the flesh is not of God: and this is that spirit of antichrist, whereof ye have heard that it should come; and even now already is it in the world. (1 John 4:2-3)

This passage is speaking about "testing the spirits," demonic spirits, of false teachers to see if they are of God.
Those that will not confess that Jesus Christ IS (present tense) come in the flesh are not of God.
--This is a statement about the present deity of Christ. He is come in the flesh; not was but is. He, not only was but is right now flesh, God come in the flesh. The person who does not confess that has the spirit of antichrist. That is a very strong statement, but that is how far a person has taken a stand against God; against Christ. It is Christ, in the flesh, that sits in heaven and rules as God. He offers to be one's Savior now. Someday this age of grace will be over. Then, as God, He will be the judge of all men. There will be no second chance. He is God: Lord of Lords; King of Kings, God over all. There is only one God. Christ is God.

 

[Dr. Walter]

But was the woman “WISDOM” of Proverbs a separate being or person from God?

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?

Why, in John 1:1 does the Apostle use the word “WORD”?

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.

Does Jesus proceed out of the mouth of God?
Isaiah 55:10-11 (KJV): 10 For as the rain cometh down, and the snow from heaven, and returneth not thither, but watereth the earth, and maketh it bring forth and bud, that it may give seed to the sower, and bread to the eater: 11 So shall my word be that goeth forth out of my mouth: it shall not return unto me void, but it shall accomplish that which I please, and it shall prosper in the thing whereto I sent it.

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.

 

[TrevorL]

Greetings again Dr. Walter and DHK,

I appreciate your responses. If I have time early next week I will answer more fully. I have gone through the thread and listed all the posts, and will review each one for my own satisfaction, as well as principally answering each of your latest. One aspect to answer quickly:

The matter is very simple. To come out and say: "Jesus is God," is a very simple statement. To skirt around that issue is what the cults do. Even the Muslims refuse to say, "Christ is God," but will only admit, "Christ is the Son of God." In essence it is a denial of his deity.

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 have met a few Oneness Pentecostals – is this what your are asking? My knowledge of this is scant, but the answer is NO. I draw your attention to my earlier posts where I allow Scripture to define my belief.
Post #28
I believe that our Lord Jesus Christ is the Son of God:
Luke 1:35 (KJV): And the angel answered and said unto her, The Holy Spirit shall come upon thee, and the power of the Highest shall overshadow thee: therefore also that holy thing which shall be born of thee shall be called the Son of God.
John 1:14 (KJV): And the Word was made flesh, and dwelt among us, (and we beheld his glory, the glory as of the only begotten of the Father,) full of grace and truth.
John 10:30 (KJV): I and my Father are one.
John 20:31 (KJV): But these are written, that ye might believe that Jesus is the Christ, the Son of God; and that believing ye might have life through his name.

Post #35
As well as the earlier quotations, I would also like to add a few more Scriptures that could be considered in regard to this important subject:
1 Corinthians 8:6 (KJV): But to us there is but one God, the Father, of whom are all things, and we in him; and one Lord Jesus Christ, by whom are all things, and we by him.
John 17:3 (KJV): And this is life eternal, that they might know thee the only true God, and Jesus Christ, whom thou hast sent.

To summarise the above two quotations, this teaches that there is One God the Father.

Could I ask this question of you both, How do you really understand 1 Corinthians 8:6 and John 17:3 and do these definitions agree with your interpretation of John 1:1? Do these verses fit in with a triune-God or Trinity? A second question, Do the Baptists endorse the full terms of the Athanasian Creed? I believe there is One God, the Father, and Jesus is the Son of God.

Kind regards
Trevor

 

[Dr. Walter]

Post #28
I believe that our Lord Jesus Christ is the Son of God:
Luke 1:35 (KJV): And the angel answered and said unto her, The Holy Spirit shall come upon thee, and the power of the Highest shall overshadow thee: therefore also that holy thing which shall be born of thee shall be called the Son of God.
John 1:14 (KJV): And the Word was made flesh, and dwelt among us, (and we beheld his glory, the glory as of the only begotten of the Father,) full of grace and truth.
John 10:30 (KJV): I and my Father are one.
John 20:31 (KJV): But these are written, that ye might believe that Jesus is the Christ, the Son of God; and that believing ye might have life through his name.

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.

Post #35
As well as the earlier quotations, I would also like to add a few more Scriptures that could be considered in regard to this important subject:
1 Corinthians 8:6 (KJV): But to us there is but one God, the Father, of whom are all things, and we in him; and one Lord Jesus Christ, by whom are all things, and we by him.
John 17:3 (KJV): And this is life eternal, that they might know thee the only true God, and Jesus Christ, whom thou hast sent.

To summarise the above two quotations, this teaches that there is One God the Father.

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.

Do these verses fit in with a triune-God or Trinity?

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

A second question, Do the Baptists endorse the full terms of the Athanasian Creed? I believe there is One God, the Father, and Jesus is the Son of God.

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.

 

[TrevorL]

Greetings again DHK,

A few more thoughts on your latest post.

The matter is very simple. To come out and say: "Jesus is God," is a very simple statement. To skirt around that issue is what the cults do. Even the Muslims refuse to say, "Christ is God," but will only admit, "Christ is the Son of God." In essence it is a denial of his deity.

I consider that the question “Is Jesus God” is not a valid question because of what the Trinitarians believe. In other words, the Scriptures do use the word “God” for Jesus, for example Thomas’ statement, but I believe that he understood the meaning of this word in a different sense. For example in Psalm 82:6 the Judges were called Elohim, because they represented the word and judgement of God. I believe a valid question is:
Matthew 22:41-45 (KJV): 41 While the Pharisees were gathered together, Jesus asked them, 42 Saying, What think ye of Christ? whose son is he? They say unto him, The Son of David. 43 He saith unto them, How then doth David in spirit call him Lord, saying, 44 The LORD said unto my Lord, Sit thou on my right hand, till I make thine enemies thy footstool? 45 If David then call him Lord, how is he his son?
My answer would be, the Christ, Jesus, is the Son of God, and Psalm 110:1 is proof of this.

How serious is this:

Hereby know ye the Spirit of God: Every spirit that confesseth that Jesus Christ is come in the flesh is of God:
3 And every spirit that confesseth not that Jesus Christ is come in the flesh is not of God: and this is that spirit of antichrist, whereof ye have heard that it should come; and even now already is it in the world. (1 John 4:2-3)

I was very surprised that you quoted this passage and do not understand what you are trying to prove by this. At the time when John wrote his epistle, some of the believers had fallen away and left the apostolic fellowship. They speculated that Jesus did not come in the flesh. I believe that this is not much different to what I discussed with Dr Walter where he claimed that Jesus did not possess fallen human nature, but the Adamic nature before the fall. I still hold very strongly to Hebrews 2:14 and Romans 8:3 as being key verses in this regard. Romans 8:3 is a very important verse in the whole context of Romans 6-8. I take the phrase “likeness of sinful flesh” or “likeness of flesh of sin” to teach not pre-fall flesh, but the same flesh as ours, yet without transgression. His body was holy because he never sinned, and for this reason I believe that Paul uses the term “likeness”. To claim that Jesus and babies inherit the guilt of Adam’s transgression is not how I understand the righteousness or justice of God.

Kind regards
Trevor

 

[TrevorL]

Greetings again Dr. Walter, (Part 1 of 2)

I started on my review, and there are a number of important areas that need to be discussed, but I see the need to also answer your latest posts.

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.

I view John 10:30 in the context of Jesus’ explanation in the verses following, where Jesus quotes Psalm 82:6, and then states that he is the Son of God. Also John 17 speaks of the disciples being “one” with Jesus and the Father. Both the Trinitarian and I assume what you say of the Oneness view of John 10:30 seem to ignore Jesus’ explanation.

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.

I agree that the Word existed before Luke 1:35, but I do not believe that Jesus existed before he was conceived in Mary and born. I simply believe that as there is only one God the Father, then the Word in John 1:1 is a personification of the attributes of God, in a similar way as Wisdom in Proverbs 8. It is not until John 1:14 that the Word finds embodiment in Jesus. John 1:14 tells us how the character of God, “full of grace and truth”, became embodied in Jesus. This character is derived from God His Father, not from a pre-existent Jesus.

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).

Where such a symbol completely fails in my estimation is that The Father is complete in all aspects.

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.

The woman Wisdom in Proverbs 8 satisfies all of these as well. Wisdom in Proverbs 8 is not Jesus.

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.

Despite your sharp rebuke, I consider Isaiah 55:10-11 as an important key. Not only these two verses, but the flow of the whole chapter. Just as in the physical creation, God spake and it was done, so in the spiritual creation, God the Father spake and the end result was the birth of the Son of God, the Saviour. The end result of His saving work will be that the earth will be filled with the knowledge of the glory of Yahweh.

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 equivalent 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.

I find your answer here very confusing. 1 Corinthians simply states that there is one God, the Father. The word Lord here is not equivalent to Yahweh, but is the equivalent of Adon or Adonai in the Hebrew, compare Psalm 110:1 and Psalm 8. I agree that Yahweh is part of the name Jesus. I believe that Jesus is Immanuel, but not in the way you explain this. When we discuss Elohim, which you have introduced later in your post, we can possibly understand why Jesus is called Immanuel. If Paul believed and taught the Trinity, he would have said in 1 Corinthians 8:6, There is one God, the Father, the Son and the Holy Spirit, each of these are God, but not three Gods, but one God – is this the correct formula or words?

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 have ignored the portion of John 17:3 that states that the Father is the only true God. Jesus does not say “we are the only true God”.

Kind regards
Trevor

 

[TrevorL]

Greetings again Dr. Walter, (Part 2 of 2)

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.

I am sure that if a Trinitarian was given the liberty to rewrite this verse he would use the expression “God the Son”, a term that the Apostles never used. They believed that Jesus was the Son of God.

I appreciate the information concerning the various Baptist Confessions of Faith. I still find any definition of the Trinity almost impossible to understand, and I do not believe that the Trinity is taught in the Scripture.

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.

I agree that Elohim can be translated as a plural noun, but I do not accept that Elohim is teaching the Trinity. The plural “US” in Genesis 1:26 is interpreted by David in Psalm 8:5 as the angels, and when we look at Genesis ch.2-3 it is evident that the angels play a significant part in the garden. God the Father in Genesis 1:26-27 invited the angels to participate in the creation of man, and the singular verb indicates that God the Father is the source, the power, the architect of all that was done.
Psalm 8:5 (KJV): For thou hast made him a little lower than the angels, and hast crowned him with glory and honour.

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 believe The Son of God is both human in nature and divine in nature and every text fits one or the other.

Seems at first an easy solution. Perhaps later we could list what is divine nature and human nature, and see whether both can coexist in one human person before his glorification. For example, all knowing, limited in knowledge, immortal, mortal. When does he swap between knowing and not knowing? every day? every minute? You either have the right key, or the wrong key to unlock all the verses that could be quoted on this subject.

Kind regards
Trevor

 

[Dr. Walter]

Greetings again Dr. Walter, (Part 1 of 2)

I started on my review, and there are a number of important areas that need to be discussed, but I see the need to also answer your latest posts.
I view John 10:30 in the context of Jesus’ explanation in the verses following, where Jesus quotes Psalm 82:6, and then states that he is the Son of God. Also John 17 speaks of the disciples being “one” with Jesus and the Father. Both the Trinitarian and I assume what you say of the Oneness view of John 10:30 seem to ignore Jesus’ explanation.

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).

I agree that the Word existed before Luke 1:35... I simply believe that as there is only one God the Father, then the Word in John 1:1 is a personification of the attributes of God, in a similar way as Wisdom in Proverbs 8. It is not until John 1:14 that the Word finds embodiment in Jesus. John 1:14 tells us how the character of God, “full of grace and truth”, became embodied in Jesus. This character is derived from God His Father, not from a pre-existent Jesus.

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!

Where such a symbol completely fails in my estimation is that The Father is complete in all aspects.

The woman Wisdom in Proverbs 8 satisfies all of these as well. Wisdom in Proverbs 8 is not Jesus.

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."

Despite your sharp rebuke, I consider Isaiah 55:10-11 as an important key. Not only these two verses, but the flow of the whole chapter. Just as in the physical creation, God spake and it was done, so in the spiritual creation, God the Father spake and the end result was the birth of the Son of God, the Saviour. The end result of His saving work will be that the earth will be filled with the knowledge of the glory of Yahweh.

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.

I find your answer here very confusing. 1 Corinthians simply states that there is one God, the Father. The word Lord here is not equivalent to Yahweh, but is the equivalent of Adon or Adonai in the Hebrew, compare Psalm 110:1 and Psalm 8.

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 agree that Yahweh is part of the name Jesus. I believe that Jesus is Immanuel, but not in the way you explain this.

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.

If Paul believed and taught the Trinity, he would have said in 1 Corinthians 8:6, There is one God, the Father, the Son and the Holy Spirit, each of these are God, but not three Gods, but one God – is this the correct formula or words?

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

You have ignored the portion of John 17:3 that states that the Father is the only true God.

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]

 

[Dr. Walter]

Greetings again Dr. Walter, (Part 2 of 2)
I am sure that if a Trinitarian was given the liberty to rewrite this verse he would use the expression “God the Son”, a term that the Apostles never used. They believed that Jesus was the Son of God.

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.

I appreciate the information concerning the various Baptist Confessions of Faith. I still find any definition of the Trinity almost impossible to understand, and I do not believe that the Trinity is taught in the Scripture.

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.

I agree that Elohim can be translated as a plural noun, but I do not accept that Elohim is teaching the Trinity. The plural “US” in Genesis 1:26 is interpreted by David in Psalm 8:5 as the angels, and when we look at Genesis ch.2-3 it is evident that the angels play a significant part in the garden. God the Father in Genesis 1:26-27 invited the angels to participate in the creation of man, and the singular verb indicates that God the Father is the source, the power, the architect of all that was done.
Psalm 8:5 (KJV): For thou hast made him a little lower than the angels, and hast crowned him with glory and honour.

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

 

[DHK]

Greetings again DHK,

A few more thoughts on your latest post.
I consider that the question “Is Jesus God” is not a valid question because of what the Trinitarians believe. In other words, the Scriptures do use the word “God” for Jesus, for example Thomas’ statement, but I believe that he understood the meaning of this word in a different sense.

That is a contradiction of what the Scriptures say:
Thomas said: My Lord and my God.
Thomas was addressing Jesus as God. There can be no dispute about that.

Take heed therefore unto yourselves, and to all the flock, over the which the Holy Ghost hath made you overseers, to feed the church of God, which he hath purchased with his own blood. (Acts 20:28)
--Who was the one that shed his blood? It was God.

I and my Father are one. (John 10:30)
--What did Jesus mean? The Jews knew exactly what he meant and therefore tried to stone him:

The Jews answered him, saying, For a good work we stone thee not; but for blasphemy; and because that thou, being a man, makest thyself God. (John 10:33)
--It was a claim to deity. He was calling himself God, and the Jews knew it, and therefore tried to stone him.

And without controversy great is the mystery of godliness: God was manifest in the flesh, justified in the Spirit, seen of angels, preached unto the Gentiles, believed on in the world, received up into glory. (1 Timothy 3:16)
--God manifest in the flesh...
--A very strong declaration of the deity of Christ. He is more than just the Son of God, but of Christ Himself.

Here is what the Oneness Pentecostal cannot explain: the baptism of Jesus:

And Jesus, when he was baptized, went up straightway out of the water: and, lo, the heavens were opened unto him, and he saw the Spirit of God descending like a dove, and lighting upon him: And lo a voice from heaven, saying, This is my beloved Son, in whom I am well pleased. (Matthew 3:16-17)
--Jesus was present in bodily form, and was baptized.
--The Holy Spirit descended as a dove and lighted upon Him.
--God the Father's voice boomed down from Heaven saying, "This is my beloved Son..."

There are all three persons present in one place. There are three persons of the trinity. But there is only one God. We believe there is only one God. Every Christian believes there is only one God.

Ye are my witnesses, saith the LORD, and my servant whom I have chosen: that ye may know and believe me, and understand that I am he: before me there was no God formed, neither shall there be after me. I, even I, am the LORD; and beside me there is no saviour. (Isaiah 43:10-11)

There was no God formed before Jehovah, neither will there be after him. There is only one God.
--But here we have all three persons of the triune God present in one place. The three-in-one Godhead physically present in one place (God the Father, God the Son, and God the Holy Spirit), just as they are mentioned in Mat.28:19,20. There is only one God.
The Jehovah of the OT is the Jesus of the NT. He is God.

For example in Psalm 82:6 the Judges were called Elohim, because they represented the word and judgement of God. I believe a valid question is:

Jesus used the same argument in John 10 against the Pharisees. They tried to stone him because he claimed deity. He turned their own words back on them saying that they called their own judges "lords", should they not call him, who is Lord of all, Lord?

Matthew 22:41-45 (KJV): 41 While the Pharisees were gathered together, Jesus asked them, 42 Saying, What think ye of Christ? whose son is he? They say unto him, The Son of David. 43 He saith unto them, How then doth David in spirit call him Lord, saying, 44 The LORD said unto my Lord, Sit thou on my right hand, till I make thine enemies thy footstool? 45 If David then call him Lord, how is he his son?

My answer would be, the Christ, Jesus, is the Son of God, and Psalm 110:1 is proof of this.

You obviously don't understand this passage. Christ was claiming (not to be the Son) but to be Lord of all.

The LORD said unto my Lord, Sit thou at my right hand, until I make thine enemies thy footstool. (Psalms 110:1)
The Jews did not have a well defined concept of the trinity.
They understood this verse as a promise of a coming Messiah or in the very least referring to the Messiah. It is a Messianic promise. It has nothing to do with the term "Son of God."

 

[TrevorL]

Greetings again Dr. Walter and DHK,

I and my Father are one. (John 10:30)
--What did Jesus mean? The Jews knew exactly what he meant and therefore tried to stone him:

The Jews answered him, saying, For a good work we stone thee not; but for blasphemy; and because that thou, being a man, makest thyself God. (John 10:33)
--It was a claim to deity. He was calling himself God, and the Jews knew it, and therefore tried to stone him.

His audience 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).

I agree with your explanation of the role of the judges. I agree also that Jesus is talking about his role, his position of representing God. As the judges received the word of God and were to act on God’s behalf, so Jesus was sanctified by the Father and sent into the world. Do these claims by Jesus represent that he is God, the second person of the Trinity?
John 10:33-39 (KJV): 33 The Jews answered him, saying, For a good work we stone thee not; but for blasphemy; and because that thou, being a man, makest thyself God. 34 Jesus answered them, Is it not written in your law, I said, Ye are gods? 35 If he called them gods, unto whom the word of God came, and the scripture cannot be broken; 36 Say ye of him, whom the Father hath sanctified, and sent into the world, Thou blasphemest; because I said, I am the Son of God? 37 If I do not the works of my Father, believe me not. 38 But if I do, though ye believe not me, believe the works: that ye may know, and believe, that the Father is in me, and I in him. 39 Therefore they sought again to take him: but he escaped out of their hand,
These judges were called gods (OT elohim), but Jesus does not directly claim here this title or the status of God (as you state) or god or elohim. He claims in v37 “I said, I am the Son of God”. When did he say that? earlier? some other day? No, a proper interpretation of John 10:30 indicates that Jesus is claiming a unity with His Father, and His Father is God. If God is His Father, and he is in unity with Him, then Jesus is the Son of God.
John 10:30 (KJV): I and my Father are one.

It was the Jews who claimed that Jesus made himself God, but Jesus argues against that claim by stating that what he had said was that God was His Father. In other words he was claiming to be the Son of God. The Jews nevertheless sought again to stone him even with this answer, because they rejected his claim to be the Son of God.

And in case you still take the view that in John 10:30 Jesus is claiming to be the One God with the Father, (or how do you understand this?), compare the similar use of the concept of unity in:
John 17:20-23 (KJV): 20 Neither pray I for these alone, but for them also which shall believe on me through their word; 21 That they all may be one; as thou, Father, art in me, and I in thee, that they also may be one in us: that the world may believe that thou hast sent me. 22 And the glory which thou gavest me I have given them; that they may be one, even as we are one: 23 I in them, and thou in me, that they may be made perfect in one; and that the world may know that thou hast sent me, and hast loved them, as thou hast loved me.

This passage in John 10:30-35 can also be seen in a larger context. Firstly note what Jesus states of his role:
John 10:36 (KJV): Say ye of him, whom the Father hath sanctified, and sent into the world, Thou blasphemest; because I said, I am the Son of God?
Moses had been sanctified at the burning bush, and sent to Pharaoh to deliver Israel. Moses felt inadequate and God provided Aaron, who later became the High Priest. Later still Moses could not bear the burden of judging the people in the wilderness, and God appointed 70 elders to help him.

Like Moses, Jesus was sanctified and sent, not to Pharaoh, or Caesar, or Pilate, but firstly to the Jewish world, and his work would flow to the Gentiles, unto all the world. Jesus was destined to supersede the positions of both Moses and Aaron, and also he had not joined forces with the contemporary 70, the Council, the Sanhedrin. The council were a bit nervous when John the Baptist had rejected some of them when they went to be baptised. Nicodemus was possibly deputed to go to Jesus when they heard of his miracles, and to avoid public disgrace Nicodemus came by night.

Perhaps to Nicodemus’ surprise Jesus did not tell him that Jesus needed the Sanhedrin to administer his affairs, or even needed him in his position as a teacher in Israel. As a result they felt more unsettled at Jesus’ preaching and miracles. During the feast of Tabernacles in John 7, they had sent the Temple guard to arrest him, but they returned empty handed with the message:
John 7:45-46 (KJV): 45 Then came the officers to the chief priests and Pharisees; and they said unto them, Why have ye not brought him? 46 The officers answered, Never man spake like this man.
Here was a man who spoke the Words of God, and even the Temple guard were arrested by his words, and felt powerless to take him.

In John 10 we have most probably representatives of this council, trying to trap him in his words, but Jesus draws their attention once more to his works, his miracles v37. Even if they would not hear his words, at least they should have acknowledged that God was with him in his miracles, just as Nicodemus had acknowledged in John 3:1.

But their hearts were hardened, their eyes were closed, and they had shut their ears Isaiah 6:8-10. They rejected the One who was sanctified and sent by God. Jesus quoted Psalm 82 which speaks of the corrupt judges who were current in the days of Asaph. This psalm was also a prophecy, a prophecy that was being fulfilled as Jesus spake to the representatives of the Sanhedrin. By using this Psalm Jesus appeals to them to repent from their way, before the Sanhedrin would be judged and cast out of office. They had sat in judgement upon him in John 7:48-52, they rejected the witness to Jesus’ words, and now they were also rejecting his miracles. This is another reason why they took up stones again to kill him.

I also question why you say that they would not stone him for claiming to be the Son of God. Caiaphas in the trial sought to condemn Jesus for claiming to be the Son of God, not because he claimed to be God the Son:
Matthew 26:63-65 (KJV): 63 But Jesus held his peace. And the high priest answered and said unto him, I adjure thee by the living God, that thou tell us whether thou be the Christ, the Son of God. 64 Jesus saith unto him, Thou hast said: nevertheless I say unto you, Hereafter shall ye see the Son of man sitting on the right hand of power, and coming in the clouds of heaven. 65 Then the high priest rent his clothes, saying, He hath spoken blasphemy; what further need have we of witnesses? behold, now ye have heard his blasphemy.
Caiaphas in thus judging, disrobed himself of his office as High Priest after the Mosaic order, before the Christ, the High Priest after the order of Melchizedek.

I can also almost endorse your statement, although it is not directly part of John 10:30-35:

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.

The word “god”, “God” or “elohim” can be used of men other than God Himself, and can be especially applied to Jesus in his role of representing God. This is how I understand Thomas’ words to Christ, “my Lord and my God”. This is not teaching the Trinity.

Kind regards
Trevor

 

[TrevorL]

Greetings again Dr. Walter,
From my earlier post:

I find your answer here very confusing. 1 Corinthians simply states that there is one God, the Father. The word Lord here is not equivalent to Yahweh, but is the equivalent of Adon or Adonai in the Hebrew, compare Psalm 110:1 and Psalm 8.

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, Yahweh is also called "adonai" and therefore if Jesus is designated "Yahweh" then he also is "adonai" as well as Yahweh is adonai and this is the equivalent 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 "Yahweh" 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."

1 Corinthians 8:6 (KJV): But to us there is but one God, the Father, of whom are all things, and we in him; and one Lord Jesus Christ, by whom are all things, and we by him.
I was surprised you claimed that “Lord” in the above phrase “Lord Jesus Christ” represents “Yahweh”. I do not agree with your method of simply swapping titles and names. Each application must be carefully considered in its context. I think you would agree that the word “Lord” in the sense of king, ruler, master is in itself an important title, role and status. Your claim is the first time that I have ever heard such a suggestion. Is this the generally held view amongst Baptists and other Trinitarians?

Also I have always considered Psalm 110 as a prophecy, future to the time of David, and that Psalm 110:1 was fulfilled when Jesus was resurrected and invited by Yahweh, that is God the Father to ascend to heaven and then sit down at his right hand. I have never imagined that anyone claimed that the pre-existent Jesus was already sitting at Yahweh’s right hand in David’s time. Again is this the generally held view? In the OT do you generally interpret Yahweh as God the Father, and Adonai as God the Son or the pre-existent Jesus or Logos?

Peter on the day of Pentecost quotes Psalm 110:1 and applies this to the resurrected Jesus:
Acts 2:32-36 (KJV): 32 This Jesus hath God raised up, whereof we all are witnesses. 33 Therefore being by the right hand of God exalted, and having received of the Father the promise of the Holy Ghost, he hath shed forth this, which ye now see and hear. 34 For David is not ascended into the heavens: but he saith himself, The LORD said unto my Lord, Sit thou on my right hand, 35 Until I make thy foes thy footstool. 36 Therefore let all the house of Israel know assuredly, that God hath made that same Jesus, whom ye have crucified, both Lord and Christ.
In v36 we have the titles Lord and Christ added to Jesus, and in this context I believe Peter is taking the title “Lord” from Psalm 110:1 which corresponds to Adonai.

There are other references to Psalm 110:1, and these apply to the resurrected Jesus.
Hebrews 1:3 (KJV): Who being the brightness of his glory, and the express image of his person, and upholding all things by the word of his power, when he had by himself purged our sins, sat down on the right hand of the Majesty on high;
Hebrews 8:1 (KJV): Now of the things which we have spoken this is the sum: We have such an high priest, who is set on the right hand of the throne of the Majesty in the heavens;
Hebrews 12:2 (KJV): Looking unto Jesus the author and finisher of our faith; who for the joy that was set before him endured the cross, despising the shame, and is set down at the right hand of the throne of God.

I agree that the title Lord in some contexts is applied to Yahweh, God the Father. For example:
Psalm 8:1-3 (KJV): 1 O LORD our Lord, how excellent is thy name in all the earth! 2 Out of the mouth of babes and sucklings hast thou ordained strength because of thine enemies, that thou mightest still the enemy and the avenger. 3 When I consider thy heavens, the work of thy fingers, the moon and the stars, which thou hast ordained;
When Jesus quotes and alludes to Psalm 8, he summarises the above by saying:
Matthew 11:25 (KJV): At that time Jesus answered and said, I thank thee, O Father, Lord of heaven and earth, because thou hast hid these things from the wise and prudent, and hast revealed them unto babes.
Thus God the Father is the Lord, Ruler of all creation.

I also believe that Jesus can have the name Yahweh applied to him in some contexts, OT and NT, as he will represent Yahweh, that is God the Father. I am unfamiliar if there is some method of distinguishing the word “Lord” in the Greek of the NT to indicate whether Yahweh or Adonai is intended. In the OT the KJV usually has LORD and Lord, and when quoting Psalm 110:1 in Acts 2:34 they carry this over into the NT, but both are S# G2962 kurios.

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.

I may look at Genesis 1:26 with you again later, but please note that in Matthew 11 that Jesus does reveal the Father to the babes v25, another allusion to Psalm 8.

Kind regards
Trevor

 

[DHK]

That is a contradiction of what the Scriptures say:
Thomas said: My Lord and my God.
Thomas was addressing Jesus as God. There can be no dispute about that.

Take heed therefore unto yourselves, and to all the flock, over the which the Holy Ghost hath made you overseers, to feed the church of God, which he hath purchased with his own blood. (Acts 20:28)
--Who was the one that shed his blood? It was God.

And without controversy great is the mystery of godliness: God was manifest in the flesh, justified in the Spirit, seen of angels, preached unto the Gentiles, believed on in the world, received up into glory. (1 Timothy 3:16)
--God manifest in the flesh...
--A very strong declaration of the deity of Christ. He is more than just the Son of God, but of Christ Himself.

Here is what the Oneness Pentecostal cannot explain: the baptism of Jesus:

And Jesus, when he was baptized, went up straightway out of the water: and, lo, the heavens were opened unto him, and he saw the Spirit of God descending like a dove, and lighting upon him: And lo a voice from heaven, saying, This is my beloved Son, in whom I am well pleased. (Matthew 3:16-17)
--Jesus was present in bodily form, and was baptized.
--The Holy Spirit descended as a dove and lighted upon Him.
--God the Father's voice boomed down from Heaven saying, "This is my beloved Son..."

There are all three persons present in one place. There are three persons of the trinity. But there is only one God. We believe there is only one God. Every Christian believes there is only one God.

Ye are my witnesses, saith the LORD, and my servant whom I have chosen: that ye may know and believe me, and understand that I am he: before me there was no God formed, neither shall there be after me. I, even I, am the LORD; and beside me there is no saviour. (Isaiah 43:10-11)

There was no God formed before Jehovah, neither will there be after him. There is only one God.
--But here we have all three persons of the triune God present in one place. The three-in-one Godhead physically present in one place (God the Father, God the Son, and God the Holy Spirit), just as they are mentioned in Mat.28:19,20. There is only one God.
The Jehovah of the OT is the Jesus of the NT. He is God.

Please comment on this part of my earlier post.

 

[Dr. Walter]

Greetings again Dr. Walter and DHK,


Do these claims by Jesus represent that he is God, the second person of the Trinity?

John 10:33-39 (KJV): 33 The Jews answered him, saying, For a good work we stone thee not; but for blasphemy; and because that thou, being a man, makest thyself God. 34 Jesus answered them, Is it not written in your law, I said, Ye are gods? 35 If he called them gods, unto whom the word of God came, and the scripture cannot be broken; 36 Say ye of him, whom the Father hath sanctified, and sent into the world, Thou blasphemest; because I said, I am the Son of God? 37 If I do not the works of my Father, believe me not. 38 But if I do, though ye believe not me, believe the works: that ye may know, and believe, that the Father is in me, and I in him. 39 Therefore they sought again to take him: but he escaped out of their hand,

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.

And in case you still take the view that in John 10:30 Jesus is claiming to be the One God with the Father, (or how do you understand this?), compare the similar use of the concept of unity in:
John 17:20-23 (KJV): 20 Neither pray I for these alone, but for them also which shall believe on me through their word; 21 That they all may be one; as thou, Father, art in me, and I in thee, that they also may be one in us: that the world may believe that thou hast sent me. 22 And the glory which thou gavest me I have given them; that they may be one, even as we are one: 23 I in them, and thou in me, that they may be made perfect in one; and that the world may know that thou hast sent me, and hast loved them, as thou hast loved me.

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 passage in John 10:30-35 can also be seen in a larger context. Firstly note what Jesus states of his role:
John 10:36 (KJV): Say ye of him, whom the Father hath sanctified, and sent into the world, Thou blasphemest; because I said, I am the Son of God?

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.

Moses had been sanctified at the burning bush, and sent to Pharaoh to deliver Israel. Moses felt inadequate and God provided Aaron, who later became the High Priest. Later still Moses could not bear the burden of judging the people in the wilderness, and God appointed 70 elders to help 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.

I also question why you say that they would not stone him for claiming to be the Son of God. Caiaphas in the trial sought to condemn Jesus for claiming to be the Son of God, not because he claimed to be God the Son:
Matthew 26:63-65 (KJV): 63 But Jesus held his peace. And the high priest answered and said unto him, I adjure thee by the living God, that thou tell us whether thou be the Christ, the Son of God. 64 Jesus saith unto him, Thou hast said: nevertheless I say unto you, Hereafter shall ye see the Son of man sitting on the right hand of power, and coming in the clouds of heaven. 65 Then the high priest rent his clothes, saying, He hath spoken blasphemy; what further need have we of witnesses? behold, now ye have heard his blasphemy.

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 can also almost endorse your statement, although it is not directly part of John 10:30-35:
The word “god”, “God” or “elohim” can be used of men other than God Himself, and can be especially applied to Jesus in his role of representing God. This is how I understand Thomas’ words to Christ, “my Lord and my God”. This is not teaching the Trinity.

You are confusing apples witih oranges again. It is one thing for God to call or designate them as "gods" in the sense of JUDICIAL representation, it is quite another thing for men to call other men "god's" in the sense of a DIRECT OBJECT OF PERSONAL FAITH. To use the term "god" much less "my God" as the object of personal faith is idoltry and thus legal grounds for stoning UNLESS this man is God in the flesh (Jn. 1:1-3,14,18). Jesus introduced his hands and side to prove He is the object of PERSONAL FAITH. Jesus interpreted the response of Thomas in the following words:

29 Jesus saith unto him, Thomas, because thou hast seen me, thou hast believed: blessed are they that have not seen, and yet have believed.

The writer of this epistle interpreted "My Lord and My God" to be equal with "the Son of God" and thus the proper object of PERSONAL FAITH.

30 And many other signs truly did Jesus in the presence of his disciples, which are not written in this book:
31 But these are written, that ye might believe that Jesus is the Christ, the Son of God; and that believing ye might have life through his name.

Jehovah ALONE claims to be the object of personal faith as SAVIOR:

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

Isa 45:21 Tell ye, and bring them near; yea, let them take counsel together: who hath declared this from ancient time? who hath told it from that time? have not I the LORD? and there is no God else beside me; a just God and a Saviour; there is none beside me.

 

[Dr. Walter]

Greetings again Dr. Walter,
From my earlier post:

1 Corinthians 8:6 (KJV): But to us there is but one God, the Father, of whom are all things, and we in him; and one Lord Jesus Christ, by whom are all things, and we by him.
I was surprised you claimed that “Lord” in the above phrase “Lord Jesus Christ” represents “Yahweh”. I do not agree with your method of simply swapping titles and names.

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:

Also I have always considered Psalm 110 as a prophecy, future to the time of David, and that Psalm 110:1 was fulfilled when Jesus was resurrected and invited by Yahweh, that is God the Father to ascend to heaven and then sit down at his right hand. I have never imagined that anyone claimed that the pre-existent Jesus was already sitting at Yahweh’s right hand in David’s time. Again is this the generally held view?

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.

Acts 2:32-36 (KJV): 32 This Jesus hath God raised up, whereof we all are witnesses. 33 Therefore being by the right hand of God exalted, and having received of the Father the promise of the Holy Ghost, he hath shed forth this, which ye now see and hear. 34 For David is not ascended into the heavens: but he saith himself, The LORD said unto my Lord, Sit thou on my right hand, 35 Until I make thy foes thy footstool. 36 Therefore let all the house of Israel know assuredly, that God hath made that same Jesus, whom ye have crucified, both Lord and Christ.
In v36 we have the titles Lord and Christ added to Jesus, and in this context I believe Peter is taking the title “Lord” from Psalm 110:1 which corresponds to Adonai.

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.

I also believe that Jesus can have the name Yahweh applied to him in some contexts, OT and NT, as he will represent Yahweh, that is God the Father.

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.

 

[Dr. Walter]

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.