Do you know the God of CHRIST?

TheWhat? · Jul 19, 2021

Edit: I hit the reply button on the wrong post!

ReluctantTheologian said:
I wouldn't advocate Arianism (=Jesus is created); and it's not just the Father and the Word/Jesus are distinct (by definition any utterance from a being is different from that being). Jesus, John and Paul make a sharp distinction between God and Jesus. The whole 'Homoousion' debate is a bit beyond me as this is non-Biblical terminology; I don't feel I should or could make a qualified call on that. Jesus has been 'begotten' or 'generated' by the Father somehow, that's sufficient for me.

The original Nicene creed (325) also clearly states that there is one God: the Father. And furthermore declares Jesus to be god of god, etc. But still the one God is only the Father in this creed. I think that is also found in all those verses I quoted. Jesus is sub-ordinate to the God the Father; so not equal in rank. Jesus is at the right hand of God, not 'God the Father'.

1 Corinthians 15:27

For “God has put all things in subjection under his feet.” But when it says, “all things are put in subjection,” it is plain that he is excepted who put all things in subjection under him.

Philippians 2:9

Therefore God has highly exalted him and bestowed on him the name that is above every name, so that at the name of Jesus every knee should bow, in heaven and on earth and under the earth, and every tongue confess that Jesus Christ is Lord, to the glory of God the Father.

We can see in both verses God (= the Father) is the one make makes everything subject to Jesus, and God (= the Father) gives Jesus a name above every name. God is distinct here from Jesus, and the name of God (YHWH) is distinct from the name of Jesus. The name that is the subject of Philippians 2:9 is not YHWH, and Jesus is not the new name for God - every Jew would know that. Jesus is the name of the son of YHWH.

Yet we see YHWH through and in Jesus, and Jesus has been given all power in heaven and on earth (by God the Father), hence he is our Lord (= Master), and everything he does and says is God speaking and acting through Him.

Phrased like this - it is wonderfully straightforward to understand and less contradictory than the traditional 6th-century 'Athanasian' way of thinking. In my humble opinion that 6th creed has ruined the 4th century Nicene one when it comes to logical consistency.

I prefer not to dwell on this because, in defense of my personal faith, I'm often pushed into areas I'm not comfortable to even attempt to articulate, but lastly, I have a loose analogy to help illustrate my contention. It's fairly well accepted that America is seen as a capitalist nation. Many would go so far as to push that fact beyond reason, with the implied assumption that America was always a capitalist nation. The reality is that America was founded before these economic matters were debated with much clarity. The founders essentially wanted to allow for liberties, so that if you are compelled for some reason to live in a religious commune, you could do so, and we do still have some of these religious traditions remaining. But something happens when we enter into the debate between capitalism and socialism: we to some extent lose the original vision. This is similar to what I see happening when christians who are merely following inspired instruction, are shoehorned into arianism by those who are too polarized within the context of that debate.

Reluctant Theologian · Jul 19, 2021

TheWhat? said:
Well, fair enough. I still have to contend that, read in the manner which I indicated previously, the Word reveals Himself, and in so doing, we come to see that He literally speaks as God in the OT, which is only alluded to in the NT. But non-Christian Jews would not say that the Word is God, and this I think is something which separates the early Jewish Christians from the others, but they would also agree in a sense, because they share the same God, and here is where we begin to scratch at the homoousian beliefs of early christianity, in my opinion. Essentially, my view is that the difference between Jews at the time of the inception of the early church would best be summarized as the prophets left the building.

Yes, I see your point. What I think is beautiful that in many ways the way Jesus was acting/speaking in the OT on behalf of God the Father is basically the same as what he did in the NT. In both cases he literally is the messenger (='angel' in Greek) or one could say the agent/delegate of God. And clearly he himself is divine (=god) as well, not just human. The new converts in the Acts period clearly were full-blown believers; yet their Christology as taught by e.g. Peter is interesting.

When one wants to get a clear view of the overall picture in the Bible, one usually has to study the speeches of key people at key events (e.g. Moses in Deuteronomy, Jesus with Sermon an the mount, etc.). Acts gives us several of those 'key' overview speeches by Peter, Philip and Paul when they address the Jews, the Sanhedrin, Felix, etc.. The following phrases are just a few taken from those speeches:

Acts 2:36

.. that God has made him both Lord and Christ ..

Acts 3:13-15

The God of Abraham, the God of Isaac, and the God of Jacob, the God of our fathers, glorified his servant Jesus, ... But you denied the Holy and Righteous One, and asked for a murderer to be granted to you, and you killed the Author of life, whom God raised from the dead.

Acts 3:26

God, having raised up his servant, sent him to you first, ..

The Christology from Peter at this key moment is striking: Peter is speaking about the God of their fathers, and his servant Jesus (twice!!) as two separate entities. Yet he also calls Jesus the Author of life (=claim to divinity). Observe how Peter is not speaking about God the Father and his servant Jesus, but about 'God' only - which is consistent with Jesus', John's and Paul's statements - and even consistent with the Nicene Creed (325) which defines the one God to be the Father only.

A 6th century 'Athanasian' creedal thinker would never say or write what Peter said in those verses in Acts; but would always use the phrase 'God the Father' to avoid the apparent inconsistency that emerges when one thinks of the Father and the Son both equally being 'God' without a difference in rank or authority. In that case the wording Peter and Luke (when writing Acts) actually did choose (no 'Father' suffix) require extreme exegetical gymnastics.

But if we swap 'glasses' those verse are very easy to understand and no inconsistencies are left. We have to read and interpret Acts without the baggage of 1900 years of Christian doctrinal thinking that came afterwards. What was the worldview and thinking of the Jewish and Gentile audience back then, and what is the Christology that emerges in Peter's speech in that context.

TheWhat? · Jul 20, 2021

ReluctantTheologian said:
Yes, I see your point. What I think is beautiful that in many ways the way Jesus was acting/speaking in the OT on behalf of God the Father is basically the same as what he did in the NT. In both cases he literally is the messenger (='angel' in Greek) or one could say the agent/delegate of God. And clearly he himself is divine (=god) as well, not just human. The new converts in the Acts period clearly were full-blown believers; yet their Christology as taught by e.g. Peter is interesting.

When one wants to get a clear view of the overall picture in the Bible, one usually has to study the speeches of key people at key events (e.g. Moses in Deuteronomy, Jesus with Sermon an the mount, etc.). Acts gives us several of those 'key' overview speeches by Peter, Philip and Paul when they address the Jews, the Sanhedrin, Felix, etc.. The following phrases are just a few taken from those speeches:

Acts 2:36

.. that God has made him both Lord and Christ ..
Acts 3:13-15

The God of Abraham, the God of Isaac, and the God of Jacob, the God of our fathers, glorified his servant Jesus, ... But you denied the Holy and Righteous One, and asked for a murderer to be granted to you, and you killed the Author of life, whom God raised from the dead.
Acts 3:26

God, having raised up his servant, sent him to you first, ..

The Christology from Peter at this key moment is striking: Peter is speaking about the God of their fathers, and his servant Jesus (twice!!) as two separate entities. Yet he also calls Jesus the Author of life (=claim to divinity). Observe how Peter is not speaking about God the Father and his servant Jesus, but about 'God' only - which is consistent with Jesus', John's and Paul's statements - and even consistent with the Nicene Creed (325) which defines the one God to be the Father only.

A 6th century 'Athanasian' creedal thinker would never say or write what Peter said in those verses in Acts; but would always use the phrase 'God the Father' to avoid the apparent inconsistency that emerges when one thinks of the Father and the Son both equally being 'God' without a difference in rank or authority. In that case the wording Peter and Luke (when writing Acts) actually did choose (no 'Father' suffix) require extreme exegetical gymnastics.

But if we swap 'glasses' those verse are very easy to understand and no inconsistencies are left. We have to read and interpret Acts without the baggage of 1900 years of Christian doctrinal thinking that came afterwards. What was the worldview and thinking of the Jewish and Gentile audience back then, and what is the Christology that emerges in Peter's speech in that context.

Interesting points. I for one think a fairly strong case can be made for orthodox trinitarianism, using scripture, and not by the typical summary of verses, rather, by somewhat of a reflection on the nature of the Word in the OT and the role of the Spirit, so I honestly don't see much of a problem arriving at beliefs concerning the trinity, even at a date prior to the first Nicene council.

The problem seems to be related to the wording used at times by the Apostles. Not to downplay the importance of studying the cultures, languages, and worldviews, there's two approaches here: we can interpret their writing as either uninformed and inconsistent, or misunderstood. I take the latter. Simple logic can tell us while they hold beliefs about God as any believer would, they are very concerned with an internal spirituality. Paul for instance makes a claim for the apostles having the mind of Christ, they speak of some state of being "in Christ" and the Johannine theology is equally mysterious. If you take them at their word, that they were in some sense united to Christ, it stands to reason that their internal self was not erased, their beliefs did not disappear, and they didn't become atheists, so to me it seems very clear, that to the apostles, who are claimed to have the capacity to perform miracles like Christ, had access to differing perspectives of God: they could simultaneously hold beliefs about Christ, while also speaking of a different perspective in Christ.

TheWhat? · Jul 20, 2021

What's further, and I have no way to prove this, but it seems to me that the same concepts are practically built "into the walls," so to speak, of traditional liturgy, especially of the Eastern variety.

TheWhat? · Aug 20, 2021

TheWhat? said:
What's further, and I have no way to prove this, but it seems to me that the same concepts are practically built "into the walls," so to speak, of traditional liturgy, especially of the Eastern variety.

This is a near perfect example of what I'm referring to.

In some Eastern parishes the iconography of saints are so arrayed almost as if to give the impression they are integral to everything that's happening.

Sovereign Grace · Aug 29, 2021

If Jesus is not God then He is a created being. If He is a created being then He isn’t holy. Those wandering through those hallways are in deep trouble.

TheWhat? · Aug 29, 2021

Sovereign Grace said:
If Jesus is not God then He is a created being. If He is a created being then He isn’t holy. Those wandering through those hallways are in deep trouble.

You believe the Father is God and is distinct from the Son, right?

Proponents of Islam like to use this logic against christians who don't seem to grasp that the canonical gospels with their depictions of Jesus praying to the Father are entirely orthodox.

Sovereign Grace · Aug 29, 2021

TheWhat? said:
You believe the Father is God and is distinct from the Son, right?

Proponents of Islam like to use this logic against christians who don't seem to grasp that the canonical gospels with their depictions of Jesus praying to the Father are entirely orthodox.

I believe in the biblical Trinity, one Being, three distinct Persons.

andreha · Aug 29, 2021

Sovereign Grace said:
I believe in the biblical Trinity, one Being, three distinct Persons.

^^^ This.

Even though God exists as Father, Son, and Holy Spirit, they are one, as in, perfect unity. The "one" refers to the perfect unity between all 3. I think that is what trips up some folks. It's the same where the Bible says that man and wife becomes one flesh. It's not like they merge or something weird, it's just that they eventually grow in unity. Obviously, God doesn't grow, because He is already infinite, but you know what I mean.

Mark Quayle · Aug 29, 2021

Sovereign Grace said:
If Jesus is not God then He is a created being. If He is a created being then He isn’t holy. Those wandering through those hallways are in deep trouble.

I like that. My logical tendencies would not have taken me directly to "If He is a created being then He isn’t holy." But you are right!

Sovereign Grace · Aug 29, 2021

Mark Quayle said:
I like that. My logical tendencies would not have taken me directly to "If He is a created being then He isn’t holy." But you are right!

Of course I am.

Just kidding. As many times as I had said “If Jesus isn’t God, He is a created being,” that hadn’t registered with me that He wouldn’t be holy until a while back. Talk about an eerie feeling. That’s why Arianism is gross error, AKA rank heresy.

Lost4words · Aug 29, 2021

PloverWing said:
@HowGullibleRU : Why did you pick that user name? If you're trolling, could you just ... not? If you're not trolling, why that user name?

Maybe his user name should be changed to:

HowGullibleamI

Reluctant Theologian · Sep 1, 2021

Sovereign Grace said:
If Jesus is not God then He is a created being. If He is a created being then He isn’t holy. Those wandering through those hallways are in deep trouble.

That is an unnecessary dichotomy; there are more options than just either 'God' (capital 'g') or 'creature'.

In any case; as Jesus traditionally is understood to be fully god and fully man, born of Mary - at least through his biological lineage from Mary: being human = descendant from Adam = being part of creation, or am I missing a logical escape here?

Besides that, as C.S. Lewis has described excellently in his famous work 'Mere Christianity', for the divine ancestry line of Jesus, the traditional view has been that Jesus was 'begotten/generated' by God the Father; e.g. like the First Council of Constantinople (381) declares:

.. the only-begotten son of god, begotten of the father before all worlds (æons), light of light, very god of very god, begotten, not made, con-substantial with the father.

Lewis' point is that being 'begotten' means of the same material/substance as the parent; as opposed to 'created' where the creator is something completely different from the objects he creates.

So Jesus being the begotten Son of God, we would expect him to be of the same divine substance as God the Father (just as my children are of the same substance as me; namely human). But that doesn't necessarily have to mean Jesus is 'God' (capital 'g') = identical to God the Father; from a logical perspective the qualification 'god' or 'divine' would equally work well. Which in turn would be perfectly compatible with Psalm 45:6-7, John 1:1c, John 20:28 and Hebrews 10:5-7.

It should be noted the Greek in which the Nicene creeds were written did not have capitals, so it didn't have 'God', just 'god'.

Also, both the original Nicene creed (325) and the slightly later Niceno-Constantinopolitan creed (381) clearly state that:

We believe in one god, the father almighty, maker of all things visible and invisible.

There is no tri-une God (capital 'g') in those creeds as far as I can tell; in line with the NT it states that the one God = God the Father.

To me it is fairly obvious that the 6th century 'Athanasian' creed you quoted in the form of the famous 'Shield of Faith' triangle is a massive theological jump from those 4th century Nicene creeds.

About the 'Holy' argument I would say: in Leviticus the repeated phrase is 'be holy for I am holy'. Israel as a people were called and expected to be holy by God. The believers in the NT are called 'saints' (= holy ones). Something/one created definitely can be holy apparently.

Mark Quayle · Sep 1, 2021

ReluctantTheologian said:
That is an unnecessary dichotomy; there are more options than just either 'God' (capital 'g') or 'creature'.

Show your logic, please. I disagree.

As far as the claim that if Jesus is created being he is not holy, I think he meant that if he is mere created being, he is not altogether pure, in the same sense that only God can be that kind of pure. Even unfallen, as Adam and Eve, and by experience I would say as those of us redeemed, we have not God's simplicity, his single-mindedness, his constancy of will, and so on.

I don't think he meant that if one is mere creature that one cannot be "set apart" for God's special purposes / use, nor was he referencing spiritual innocence.

Reluctant Theologian · Sep 2, 2021

Mark Quayle said:
Show your logic, please. I disagree.

Sorry for the confusion

My entire post was intended as the argument for the proposition that the choice doesn't have to be only between 'God' and 'creature'. My apologies if you didn't get that. To abbreviate further: the Nicene creeds state the One God = God the Father, yet they also state Jesus = the begotten 'very god of very god' (paraphrased).

Begotten is different from created, but if A begets B then B cannot be A in the identity sense; but they can be in the qualitative/substance sense. So as Jesus is the only-begotten Son of God, he also is god/divine (not created, but begotten/generated), but still separate and distinct from God.

As soon as the opening line of the Nicene creeds submit that 'the One God = God the Father', then by definition that one God cannot be (also) Jesus; otherwise that opening line would be false.

Psalms 45: v 6 + 7

Your throne, O God (elohim), is for ever and ever ..
.. Therefore God (elohim), your God (elohim), has anointed you ..

Psalms 82: v 1

God (elohim) has taken his place in the divine council;
in the midst of the gods (elohim) he holds judgment:

Psalms 82: v 6

I said, “You are gods (elohim),
sons of the Most High, all of you; ...

Psalms 45:6,7 speaks about a King who is called 'elohim', yet it also speaks of the 'elohim' of that King; so it clearly features two beings both described as 'elohim'.

Psalms 81:1,6 explicitly speaks about God addressing a divine council where God and the council members are described as 'elohim'.

Ergo: not only God is called 'elohim' by OT scripture, that qualification is used for other beings as well.

Does this make more sense argumentation-wise? (the reader does not necessarily have to agree, but at least I would hope he can follow my line of reasoning

)

Another point to consider: as far as I can tell; in all of the Messianic Psalms there is a clear distinction between YHWH and the Messiah. That fact alone would have influenced the understanding of who the Messiah would be in relation to God, and in turn also defined the Messianic understanding of the 1st century Jews who started to believe in Jesus as the Son of God and His Messiah; the Holy One of God.

Mark Quayle said:
As far as the claim that if Jesus is created being he is not holy, I think he meant that if he is mere created being, he is not altogether pure, in the same sense that only God can be that kind of pure. Even unfallen, as Adam and Eve, and by experience I would say as those of us redeemed, we have not God's simplicity, his single-mindedness, his constancy of will, and so on.

I don't think he meant that if one is mere creature that one cannot be "set apart" for God's special purposes / use, nor was he referencing spiritual innocence.

I fully agree to your points for this bit!

Mark Quayle · Sep 2, 2021

ReluctantTheologian said:
Sorry for the confusion My entire post was intended as the argument for the proposition that the choice doesn't have to be only between 'God' and 'creature'. My apologies if you didn't get that. To abbreviate further: the Nicene creeds state the One God = God the Father, yet they also state Jesus = the begotten 'very god of very god' (paraphrased).

Begotten is different from created, but if A begets B then B cannot be A in the identity sense; but they can be in the qualitative/substance sense. So as Jesus is the only-begotten Son of God, he also is god/divine (not created, but begotten/generated), but still separate and distinct from God.

As soon as the opening line of the Nicene creeds submit that 'the One God = God the Father', then by definition that one God cannot be (also) Jesus; otherwise that opening line would be false.

Psalms 45: v 6 + 7

Your throne, O God (elohim), is for ever and ever ..
.. Therefore God (elohim), your God (elohim), has anointed you ..
Psalms 82: v 1

God (elohim) has taken his place in the divine council;
in the midst of the gods (elohim) he holds judgment:
Psalms 82: v 6

I said, “You are gods (elohim),
sons of the Most High, all of you; ...

Psalms 45:6,7 speaks about a King who is called 'elohim', yet it also speaks of the 'elohim' of that King; so it clearly features two beings both described as 'elohim'.

Psalms 81:1,6 explicitly speaks about God addressing a divine council where God and the council members are described as 'elohim'.

Ergo: not only God is called 'elohim' by OT scripture, that qualification is used for other beings as well.

Does this make more sense argumentation-wise? (the reader does not necessarily have to agree, but at least I would hope he can follow my line of reasoning )

Another point to consider: as far as I can tell; in all of the Messianic Psalms there is a clear distinction between YHWH and the Messiah. That fact alone would have influenced the understanding of who the Messiah would be in relation to God, and in turn also defined the Messianic understanding of the 1st century Jews who started to believe in Jesus as the Son of God and His Messiah; the Holy One of God.

I fully agree to your points for this bit!

You say, "Sorry for the confusion My entire post was intended as the argument for the proposition that the choice doesn't have to be only between 'God' and 'creature'. My apologies if you didn't get that." I'm thinking, "But I wasn't confused —that IS what I thought you were saying, and I wanted to know your reasoning, since I disagree (rather vehemently) with your statement.

But as to your reasoning: I don't see how the 'two persons' (Father and Son), one even subordinate to the other as demonstrated several ways in Scripture, are either one any less God than the other. But that isn't the question. Your statement was made in opposition to my belief that there can be only Creator and Created (whether you were aware of my belief or not).

You said,
ReluctantTheologian said: ↑
"That is an unnecessary dichotomy; there are more options than just either 'God' (capital 'g') or 'creature'."

"Creator" is of necessity God; and God, as shown by the fact that he created, is the Creator. There is only God and Creature, so Creator and Creature. The Messiah is that Creator, as the Old Testament claims and New Testament affirms. "All things were made by him..." ((Edit) I said those two in reverse order: it should read, There is only Creator and Creature, so only God and Creature.)

As for your claim of the separation and distinction between God and Son, I would advise you be more careful of the words of your analysis. The old dudes were wise enough to not say more than they do in the creeds. There is a distinction, as you said, for which most have used the word, "persons", to describe, and even, rightly, Father and Son. But there is no separation between them in their nature and being. They are, as you quoted, God, and very God of very God. That doesn't mean God-like, or anything of the sort —in fact, the emphasis "very God of very God" is to dispel the notion that the Son of God is only a begotten being, and not God the Creator/ Omnipotent/ First Cause himself. Isaiah said, concerning the Messiah: "...Wonderful Counselor, Almighty God, Everlasting Father..."

There can be only Creator, and Created. First Cause, and effects. God, and not-God. Omnipotent, and weak.

Mark Quayle · Sep 2, 2021

ReluctantTheologian said:
With all respect: I realise that statement is derived from the 6th-century co-called 'Athaniasian' creed; but no Bible verse exists that directly states the above. When someone might ask: 'Who is the one-and-only God', I would be inclined to just refer to the next couple of verses (all in ESV English Standard Version - Wikipedia translation):

John 17:3
'And this is eternal life, that they may know You, the only true God, and Jesus Christ whom You have sent,'

1 Corinthians 8:4-6
' ... we know ... there is no God but one,
For although there may be many 'gods' and many 'lords' -
yet for us there is one God, the Father, from whom are all things and for whom we exist,
and one Lord, Jesus Christ, through whom are all things and through whom we exist.'

Colossians 1:3
'We always thank God, the Father of our Lord Jesus Christ, when we pray for you, ..'

Ephesians 4:5-6
'.. one Lord, one faith, one baptism, one God and Father of all, who is over all and through all and in all.'

1 Thessalonians 1:9-10
'.. to serve the living and true God, and to wait for his Son from heaven .. '

1 Timothy 1:17
'To the King of the ages, immortal, invisible, the only God, be honor and glory forever and ever. Amen'

1 Timothy 2:5
'For there is one God, and there is one mediator between God and men, the man Christ Jesus .. '

Jude 24
'.. to the only God, our Savior, through Jesus Christ our Lord, be glory, majesty, dominion, and authority, before all time[a] and now and forever. Amen.'

Conclusions from that are not that difficult

If those 'not-difficult' conclusions contradict Isaiah 6, they should have been more difficult. Concerning the Messiah, "And his name shall be called, Wonderful Counselor, Almighty God, Everlasting Father, Prince of Peace."

By the way, in the Greek, and in many languages, including English, the word "and" does not always rhetorically separate what is on the two sides of 'and' into two categories, but often combines them. See above, how I said, "in the Greek, and in many languages..." —there it means something like, "even". Thus, in, 'Blessed be God, even the Father of our Lord Jesus Christ' (from 2 Cor 1:3), the Greek conjunction "kai" which is usually translated "and", and here translated "even", can also reasonably mean "even" in other places such as John 1:1 "and the Word was God" (which obviously means something like, "the Word even was God"), and "...there is one God, the Father, from whom are all things and for whom we exist, and one Lord, Jesus Christ, through whom are all things and through whom we exist." (1 Corinthians 8:6) could just as easily mean, "God...even one Lord Jesus Christ".

Do you know the God of CHRIST?

Ate all the treats

אַבְרָהָם

Ate all the treats

Ate all the treats

Ate all the treats

Certified Flunky

Ate all the treats

Certified Flunky

Senior Contributor

Monergist; and by reputation, Reformed Calvinist

Certified Flunky

Jesus I Trust In You

אַבְרָהָם

Monergist; and by reputation, Reformed Calvinist

אַבְרָהָם

Monergist; and by reputation, Reformed Calvinist

Monergist; and by reputation, Reformed Calvinist

Similar threads