JJB said:
"1. I believe in the God of the Bible. He is presented there (I believe) as a complex being having three Personsthe Father, the Son and the Holy Spirit. The Bible does not explain in what sense these three actually comprise the one true God, so I am open to those whose explanations may differ from my own theories on the subject. It is enough (and all that Scripture permits) to say that the Father, Son and Holy Spirit are all individually declared to be God in Scripture, though there is the equal insistence upon there being only one God. I have no problems with the trinitarian formulation that was codified at Nicea, and can express my position in similar terminology. However, there were ten generations of true Christians prior to the Council of Nicea, who did not have the benefit of that formulation, and may, therefore, have given slightly different explanations of their own trinitarian understanding. True Christians may understand the Holy Trinity in other terms than I myself do, without incurring any condemnation from menor, I hope, from God."
I asked for this man's statement of faith, as he is new to our community and seems to be gathering followers. He has a local radio show and conducts house meetings where people can discuss Christianity.
I am looking for confirmation of my understanding of his above statement before I post something further in my discussion with him on his forum. Thanks all.
He doesn't sound unorthodox on the Trinity, but at the same time, he doesn't sound very convinced of what he believes, either.
I read some more of what he wrote at his forum, and his contention that Arians were saved before Nicea, so why can they be saved after Nicea, shows his ignorance as a Christian. Arians were not saved before Nicea. The Nicene Council means absolutely nothing as far as the Scripture is concerned. His problem is that he lends too much creedance to the conclusions of the councils and not enough to the scriptural foundation of these councils. The Nicene Creed condemns those who deny the deity of Christ because the Bible condemns those who deny the deity of Christ. That he doesn't know this makes me highly suspicious of his teachings. I can tell you this much, no orthodox church would ever dream of laying hands on this guy if he were to say stuff like this.
I was reading his "mission statement" or whatever he calls it, and I noticed he said this: "Even more important than an understanding of Gods triune nature (which He never explains, and never insists that people must understand or know). . . ." This is patently false. God commands us to search the Scriptures in order to know all things (revealed) concerning him. He has clearly revealed the Trinity of Persons in the Godhead and
requires that we understand it. There are lesser and greater levels of understanding according to his purpose, but the commandment to know him is not based upon our ability, it is based on his divine prerogative.
He goes on to say, " . . . [knowledge of God] consists in actually knowing Him as a personal Reality, and growth in that knowledge of Him through a devoted and obedient life, walking before Him and trusting in Him as a child does with a father." This is nonsense. What is a "personal Reality"? That phrase has no meaning. Moreover,
how do you live an obedient life (and thereby, according to this guy, know God) if you don't
know how to live obediently? He has clearly got it backwards. We must first know what God requires for obedience before we can be obedient. Thus, my sketicism of this guy grows.
I'm also a little wary of the language he uses to talk about God the Son and the incarnation. He says this, "In addition to the great self-revelations mentioned above, God has further revealed Himself in the Incarnation, through which He Himself assumed a human form and nature, and lived among men," but he says it in a sense that seems to imply that
God himself (that is, the whole Godhead) became incarnate. I hestitate to say that's what he meant because he seems to have little knowledge of the langauge of theology and thus, doesn't write very precisely in that sense. So, I want to give him the benefit of the doubt with regards to the words he uses to explain things. In this particular case, I don't think he said it well.
I also read this, "I believe that Jesus of Nazareth, having been glorified in His resurrection, is now entrusted by God the Father with all authority in heaven and on earth. . . ." Again, I think this is imprecise and incorrect phraseology. God the Son has always had all authority in heaven and in earth. To say "he is now entrusted" is wrong. The Son has eternally been given power over all flesh, to redeem and condemn according to the will of the Father.
Other than that, he seems to be your typical existential Arminian Christian.
Soli Deo Gloria
Jon
Now, I need to go look these up!
