Unorthodox TheologyA forum to discuss/debate theological doctrines not accepted by mainstream evangelical Christianity (eg. Full Preterism, Unitarianism)
hello,
In the meantime, reflect what the Bible does say: That Jesus was created by God; That Jesus received all power and authority from God; and that Jesus is eternaly subordinate to God. The early Christians believed that Jesus and The Father were the same kind of being with Christ subordinate to the Father, not the same being. Only after Augustine was the notion of subordinationism wiped out.
I disagree with you here, jeffC. I believe the Bible states that Jesus is God.
Revelation 3:14 and Colossians 1:14-15 both speak of Christ being before creation; however, you don't find Christ spoken of as created. This is parallel to John 1:1-2.
In Acts 2:36, Peter was addressing devout monotheistic Jews. To them, no human being is on the level of God. Peter is saying that Jesus is on the same level as God. This would be shocking to a first century Jew since for a human being to be Lord means that that human being must be in some way God.
okedoke......what I am wondering doesn't fit it, so carry on.
I think I see what you're saying. You're saying that the Nicene Creed was penned by a group of Christian bishops to make a declaration of what they believed because a heresy called Arianism was creeping in. So, if this creed was penned by Chrisitan bishops who should be knowledgeable about what they believe about Scripture then it should tell us something about Scripture. What I'm getting at is this: the time gap between the early church and the Nicean council may have had time for certain slight modifications to be absorbed into doctrine--namely a way to describe the Godhead using Greek philosophy to Greeks and Hellenists at the time who believed that God the Father couldn't suffer. This is why I am trying to stick to Scripture.
I think I see what you're saying. You're saying that the Nicene Creed was penned by a group of Christian bishops to make a declaration of what they believed because a heresy called Arianism was creeping in. So, if this creed was penned by Chrisitan bishops who should be knowledgeable about what they believe about Scripture then it should tell us something about Scripture. What I'm getting at is this: the time gap between the early church and the Nicean council may have had time for certain slight modifications to be absorbed into doctrine--namely a way to describe the Godhead using Greek philosophy to Greeks and Hellenists at the time who believed that God the Father couldn't suffer. This is why I am trying to stick to Scripture.
I wasn't saying anything jpr
The Creed was penned long after scripture and I hadn't even thought of that when I posted. I understand the gap that you speak of and I understand your interest in this thread being in the scriptures.
But, given the opportunity, I will say one more thing which is just my own thinking and has no real value here. I think the scriptures are important and I value them. I also think people are important and I value them.....if there were no people, what value would the scriptures have? I don't expect an answer because it seems a rather dumb question.
I can't debate scriptures because I find the words so odd, so hard to understand. I can understand things like "The Lord is My Shepherd", so easy.
The Creed was penned long after scripture and I hadn't even thought of that when I posted. I understand the gap that you speak of and I understand your interest in this thread being in the scriptures.
But, given the opportunity, I will say one more thing which is just my own thinking and has no real value here. I think the scriptures are important and I value them. I also think people are important and I value them.....if there were no people, what value would the scriptures have? I don't expect an answer because it seems a rather dumb question.
I can't debate scriptures because I find the words so odd, so hard to understand. I can understand things like "The Lord is My Shepherd", so easy.
You are right that both Scripture and people are important. The first commandment is to love the Lord God with everything and the second was to love people as yourself. Scripture helps us understand how to do both.
Debates are usually useless but discussion is good. There is probably a fine line between them but I think that both cause each other to at least examine their beliefs and also gain an understanding of the other persons' beliefs. I think discussion tends to do this more so than debates.
There is some Scripture hard to understand. You are so right in that. What Bible translation do you use? I personally prefer New King James and the New Living Translation.
So what does this have to do with non-trinitarianism? I have no idea but it is Scriptural.
You are right that both Scripture and people are important. The first commandment is to love the Lord God with everything and the second was to love people as yourself. Scripture helps us understand how to do both.
Debates are usually useless but discussion is good. There is probably a fine line between them but I think that both cause each other to at least examine their beliefs and also gain an understanding of the other persons' beliefs. I think discussion tends to do this more so than debates.
There is some Scripture hard to understand. You are so right in that. What Bible translation do you use? I personally prefer New King James and the New Living Translation.
So what does this have to do with non-trinitarianism? I have no idea but it is Scriptural.
I have a New American Bible but I usually refer to the King James Bible for reference because it is the most accepted but I find the New American Bible easier to understand.
This has not much or nothing to do with non-trinitarianism. But to give some input to that, I personally believe in the Trinity, God the Father, Son and Holy Spirit. One God with three different hats, the Creator, the Savior and the Teacher. Somewhat like a Mother, Wife, Girl Guide Leader. One person, three hats. But I do not refer to God as person or persons because that is what we are. I figure God is way above just being a person.
I have a New American Bible but I usually refer to the King James Bible for reference because it is the most accepted but I find the New American Bible easier to understand.
This has not much or nothing to do with non-trinitarianism. But to give some input to that, I personally believe in the Trinity, God the Father, Son and Holy Spirit. One God with three different hats, the Creator, the Savior and the Teacher. Somewhat like a Mother, Wife, Girl Guide Leader. One person, three hats. But I do not refer to God as person or persons because that is what we are. I figure God is way above just being a person.
Just my two cents worth on the subject.
That's pretty close to what I believe concerning the Father, Son and Holy Spirit. You're very right in that God is way above just being a person. But He is a genuine human being in Jesus Christ; even Jesus Christ is a whole lot more than a genuine human being--He's fully God and fully man.
The New American Bible is a decent translation although has a hint of Catholic in it. It is much easier to understand than the King James. One thing you could probably do is expand your translations so that whenever you come to a troubling passage you can examine the approaches that different translators took.
That's pretty close to what I believe concerning the Father, Son and Holy Spirit. You're very right in that God is way above just being a person. But He is a genuine human being in Jesus Christ; even Jesus Christ is a whole lot more than a genuine human being--He's fully God and fully man.
The New American Bible is a decent translation although has a hint of Catholic in it. It is much easier to understand than the King James. One thing you could probably do is expand your translations so that whenever you come to a troubling passage you can examine the approaches that different translators took.
I should have added about Jesus being fully human, a person, fully man and fully God. Yes I believe that.
The New International Version I would go to here to try and understand. And yes it is a good idea to examine the approaches different traslators take. But when I find a passage troubling, I find that most people find it troubling and there is seldom an answer except what one can wring out of it for themselves. I am always happy with God....the troubling passages are not a real problem. Truth is God within me.
Consider this... As Man now is, Christ once was. As Christ now is, Man may become.
Although we are in no way able to become perfect justified by our actions, we may become perfect justified through the atonement.
Christ taught in the intercessory prayer that the atonement was for the purpose of allowing a way for us to become one with Christ and Heavenly Father as Christ and Heavenly Father are one already.
John 17:20-23; 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.
So if we are faithful and repent/endure through to the end, and are then perfected through the atonement and grace of God, meaning that we then become one with Christ and Heavenly Father, as they are one with each other, does this mean that we become a part of the same substance?
John obviously believed this principle, as he made record earlier in the same writings, this:
John 10:28-35; 28 And I give unto them eternal life; and they shall never perish, neither shall any man pluck them out of my hand. 29 My Father, which gave them me, is greater than all; and no man is able to pluck them out of my Father's hand. 30 I and my Father are one. 31 Then the Jews took up stones again to stone him. 32 Jesus answered them, Many good works have I showed you from my Father; for which of those works do ye stone me? 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;
__________________ William Tyndale - "If God spare my life, ere many years I will cause a boy that driveth the plough to know more of the Scripture than thou dost."
Matthew 5:48; Be ye therefore perfect, even as your Father which is in heaven is perfect.
The question then is whether Christ would give a commandment that we couldn't possibly keep.
Before the atonement Jesus was only mortally perfect. After the atonement he was eternally perfect just as his Father is.
Hebrews 5:8-9; 8 Though he were a Son, yet learned he obedience by the things which he suffered; 9 And being made perfect, he became the author of eternal salvation unto all them that obey him;
[^ Doesn't exactly state this, but can be used to support the argument with the other scripture that JeffC and I have quoted.]
JeffC has stated that Christ is eternally subordinate to Heavenly Father. However, I myself am not sure this is true. I believe He was subordinate up until He was made eternally perfect.
I believe he always knew that Heavenly Father would want His Son to be equal to Him and also us too:
Philippians 2:5-6; 5 Let this mind be in you, which was also in Christ Jesus: 6 Who, being in the form of God, thought it not robbery to be equal with God:
__________________ William Tyndale - "If God spare my life, ere many years I will cause a boy that driveth the plough to know more of the Scripture than thou dost."
Matthew 5:48; Be ye therefore perfect, even as your Father which is in heaven is perfect.
The question then is whether Christ would give a commandment that we couldn't possibly keep.
Do you think that we might be given a commandment that we are unable to keep in order to show us our need for a Savior?
Before the atonement Jesus was only mortally perfect. After the atonement he was eternally perfect just as his Father is.
Hebrews 5:8-9; 8 Though he were a Son, yet learned he obedience by the things which he suffered; 9 And being made perfect, he became the author of eternal salvation unto all them that obey him;
[^ Doesn't exactly state this, but can be used to support the argument with the other scripture that JeffC and I have quoted.]
Sometimes perfect was used to describe complete.
JeffC has stated that Christ is eternally subordinate to Heavenly Father. However, I myself am not sure this is true. I believe He was subordinate up until He was made eternally perfect.
I believe he always knew that Heavenly Father would want His Son to be equal to Him and also us too:
Philippians 2:5-6; 5 Let this mind be in you, which was also in Christ Jesus: 6 Who, being in the form of God, thought it not robbery to be equal with God:
I believe that Phillipians 2:5-6 is speaking of humility, and considering one another better than ouselves, not of us ever being equal with God the Father. Verses 3-4 read:
Do nothing out of selfish ambition or vain conceit, but in humility consider others better than yourselves. Each of you should look not only to your own interests, but to the interests of others.
__________________
Therefore, as God's chosen people, holy and dearly loved, clothe yourselves with compassion, kindness, humility, gentleness and patience. Bear with each other and forgive whatever grievances you may have against one another. Forgive as the Lord forgave you. And over all these virtues put on love, which binds them all together in perfect unity. Colossians 3:12-14
Linear Mode
