I have ongoing discussions with folks and many support some type of "free will" that allows them to decide to choose and believe in Christ. In some cases they think they have some kind of drawing of the Holy Spirit as they all claim to believe the Bible. Unfortunately many think that there is some ability within themselves to believe the gospel without removal of barrier issues. What I term barrier issues are statements in the Bible referring to man's fallen condition. He is variously described as: desperately wicked, hater of God, thinking evil constantly, heart of stone, carnal, having no good thing in him, lover of darkness (and not light) ,dead spiritually and of course sin - personal and Inherited from Adam.
So I always hear the same verses claiming that all people everywhere have the ability to believe and of course the result of that is they believe that that is what causes God to choose them. There is this irrational thought that God would never consider interfering with man as He is a gentleman. What, did not this Gentleman interfere with man all through history both for their destruction and for His glory?
So here is the inability chart:
Hi there, I'm Paul.
ReplyDeleteI have read your inability chart and I agree with that, but there is also an ABILITY chart written in the Scriptures.
Is there a reason why excluded that?
Paul - Thanks for the comment. If you have an "Ability Chart" I would like to see it. Since Salvation is monergistic, man's only ability is to sin. I suspect that chart would be rather brief. However once regenerated the person, the person is now able to not sin (st times) based on the indwelling of the Holy Spirit and that response of the person to scripture. The inability of man in a sense is the ability of man to not be able to do anything with out God the Father having given that person to the Son and then having regeneration occur. What I am saying essentially is that goats are always goats and sheep are always sheep and our job is to provide scripture to them all. God sorts out the sheep who thought they were goats and regenerates them. At the same time any goats that are masquerading as sheep are left as goats. Anyway if you do have a chart I would like to see it but I suspect it will contain all the sin lists in scripture ;-)
ReplyDeleteThanks for your response.
ReplyDeleteIf men do not know or understand the answer to the question, "What must I do to be saved" then nothing else really matters much.
In the Bible, the salvation chart for us to DO something in order to be saved is a lot bigger than the salvation chart for the elect to be born again (saved from a spiritually dead state unto everlasting life).
There I fully agree with your chart, that a man can DO absolutely nothing in order to be born again. That is, because he or she is dead (spiritually), therefore they can do absolutely nothing, not even believe or have faith, it is a FREE GIFT of God eternal life and boasting is excluded, but only for the elect, the children of God.
But that salvation is the ONLY salvation which the Lord will give only to His children as a free gift, and any other salvation is by faith or believe and act upon what the Lord Jesus Christ has said.
Otherwise there would be no point to preach the gospel for men to repent and believe.
The term 'salvation' standing by itself is meaningless. Saved from WHAT ?
Saved from being 'unsaved' ? That is also meaningless.
It only has meaning when the sinner knows from WHAT he is going to be saved from.
Now the chart for all sinners to be saved is the entire Bible. There are a lot of things we must DO in order to be saved from whatever we need to be saved from.
First we need to believe in the Lord Jesus Christ, which is repent and DO what the Lord Jesus has commanded us to do.
For example, if a man wants to be saved from cancer or any other sickness, or from drowning in a Ocean he needs to believe and call on the Name of the Lord and then he might be saved.
If he calls on Buddha or Krishna or Jehovah, he will not be saved, because there is no other Name given on earth whereby he must be saved, only JESUS.
Those salvations are for both the elect and the non-elect, for God's children and Satan's children, or for the sheep and the goats alike, that is, because God wants that no one will perish but ALL to be saved.
You said, "The inability of man in a sense is the ability of man to not be able to do anything with out God the Father having given that person to the Son and then having regeneration occur."
Do you mean that one God the Father is passing on that person to another God the Son ?
In how many gods do you believe ? :-o
Paul, Thanks again for the interaction. I have no concern with what you said down to this point: “But that salvation is the ONLY salvation which the Lord will give only to His children as a free gift, and any other salvation is by faith or believe and act upon what the Lord Jesus Christ has said.“. My position would be that there is only one salvation that results in many simultaneous gifts by God [a number usually from scripture indicating about 30 to 40 gifts – none of which are tongues ;-)]. By that I am saying salvation has many facets and multiple results. The regenerate are saved from God’s wrath and saved from the Adamic nature having total control over us. We are saved from Satan being our Father. I would also suggest that we become His children by means of Adoption. I agree that adoption is just one of His free gifts. Salvation comes only by having been given the gift of faith and only after that can anyone respond by expressing that faith by/through repentance. See my concern is your use of “act upon” and that becoming a works based salvation – note I used the word response – I use that in that once regenerated and we are in a immediate fellowship relationship now with God we can only respond with Repentance and His gift of faith (see my chart on the Order of Salvation). I am monergistic in both salvation and the Christian Way of Life (CWOL).
ReplyDelete“Otherwise there would be no point to preach the gospel for men to repent and believe “. The reason we do is because it was commanded Matthew 28:19-20. As believers we are to respond to God’s commands positively if in fellowship – if not in fellowship then it is works based.
“The term 'salvation' standing by itself is meaningless. Saved from WHAT ? Saved from being 'unsaved' ? That is also meaningless.“ I think I covered that above.
“It only has meaning when the sinner knows from WHAT he is going to be saved from.“ I hope I was clear above but also we need to understand what we are saved TO. Christ’s work on the cross brings us to Him. Recall the usage of the word “draw” in the NT is compel or even drag. We also have the implication of the use of the Greek in “metanoeo” in repentance which is a complete change of mind – a 180 degree turn which is also a saved To example.
“Now the chart for all sinners to be saved is the entire Bible. There are a lot of things we must DO in order to be saved from whatever we need to be saved from.“ I would change the statement to read “for all those that the Father has given to the Son to be saved” as any that were not given in eternity past will never be saved as they are the pots made for destruction in Romans 9. We can Do nothing to bring about our salvation. Even with the Bible as our textbook, we have unbelieving seminary professors teaching – so knowledge of scripture is needed for them but they lack the Holy Spirit. The reason is they are possibly goats and only after death will we know if they were goats or apostate sheep. Part 1
“First we need to believe in the Lord Jesus Christ, which is repent and DO what the Lord Jesus has commanded us to do.“ I am reminded of the end Romans 7 as Paul was describing not doing what he wanted to do. I usually ask those I teach “Why are you still left on earth after you believed? Why were you not immediately raptured?” This usually leads to a lot of varied answers but the first answers always have to spread the Gospel of Christ, then next usually comes to study and learn about God and Christ and then usually to grow in sanctification. Eventually they realize it is only done by means of the Spirit. Not my works but His – He gets the Glory.
ReplyDelete“For example, if a man wants to be saved from cancer or any other sickness, or from drowning in a Ocean he needs to believe and call on the Name of the Lord and then he might be saved. If he calls on Buddha or Krishna or Jehovah, he will not be saved, because there is no other Name given on earth whereby he must be saved, only JESUS. “ I submit there are no magic words that can be said unless the person is regenerated and of course that requires the future salvific act to have been initiated in eternity past and by the way I do not hold to God’s foreknowledge as looking down the corridor of time to see who will choose Jesus and as you note there is no other name – but it is not magic – only by means of regeneration.
“Those salvations are for both the elect and the non-elect, for God's children and Satan's children, or for the sheep and the goats alike, that is, because God wants that no one will perish but ALL to be saved. “ You did not use a scripture reference here so let me provide what I suspect you would have used. I assume you are referring to 1 Timothy 4:10 “For to this end we toil and strive, because we have our hope set on the living God, who is the Savior of all people, especially of those who believe” ESV. “All people” refers to people of every tribe, tongue, people and nation. To mean “all humanity” would clearly go against scripture in several areas and result in universalism which does not fit with the concept of eternal punishment. We must remember that God “desiring” does not mean he “ordained it to come to pass”. The word at issue is the Greek word “malista” usually translated “especially” and according to George W. Knight III (Pastoral Epistles A Commentary on the Greek Text P 203) it is better understood to function making the “all people” mean all those believing from all those tribes, tongues and nations. You may want to read through the Westminster Confession of Faith to get a summary of the concepts I am refer (Chap. 3, 6, 9, 10, 14 & 15 – I know seems like a lot but they are mostly brief statements).
“Do you mean that one God the Father is passing on that person to another God the Son ? In how many gods do you believe ? :-o “. God the Father did the choosing and God the Son died for those the Father chose (John 6:43-51) and the Holy Spirit does the regenerating of those that were given to the Son for His saving work on the cross to be applied to and He will not lose any. I assumed you were trinitarian. I hold to the Orthodox belief that God is one in essence and 3 in persons being the Father, the Son and the Holy Spirit. I also believe the Son being fully God and fully Man at the hypostatic union. The chart below comes from Matt Slick’s site https://carm.org/trinity – Hopefully it will post correctly column wise, if not just go to the site.
I hope I clarified some things for you. Part 2
The Trinity Chart
ReplyDeleteThere is only one God
The first step is to establish how many Gods exist: one! Isaiah 43:10; 44:6,8; 45:5,14,18,21,22; 46:9; 47:8; John 17:3; 1 Cor. 8:5-6; Gal. 4:8-9
• "I am the LORD, and there is no other; besides Me there is no God," (Isaiah 45:5).
• “Thus says the Lord, the King of Israel And his Redeemer, the Lord of hosts: ‘I am the first and I am the last, And there is no God besides Me," (Isaiah 44:6). The columns do not line up so go to the link.
The Trinity
FATHER SON HOLY SPIRIT
Called God Phil. 1:2
John 1:1,14; Col. 2:9
Acts 5:3-4
Creator Isaiah 64:8
John 1:3; Col. 1:15-17
Job 33:4, 26:13
Resurrects 1 Thess. 1:10
John 2:19, 10:17
Rom. 8:11
Indwells 2 Cor. 6:16
Col. 1:27
John 14:17
Everywhere 1 Kings 8:27
Matt. 28:20
Psalm 139:7-10
All knowing 1 John 3:20
John 16:30; 21:17
1 Cor. 2:10-11
Sanctifies 1 Thess. 5:23
Heb. 2:11
1 Pet. 1:2
Life giver Gen. 2:7: John 5:21
John 1:3; 5:21
2 Cor. 3:6,8
Fellowship 1 John 1:3
1 Cor. 1:9
2 Cor. 13:14; Phil. 2:1
Eternal Psalm 90:2
Micah 5:1-2
Rom. 8:11; Heb. 9:14
A Will Luke 22:42
Luke 22:42
1 Cor. 12:11
Speaks Matt. 3:17; Luke 9:25
Luke 5:20; 7:48
Acts 8:29; 11:12; 13:2
Love John 3:16
Eph. 5:25
Rom. 15:30
Searches
the heart Jer. 17:10
Rev. 2:23
1 Cor. 2:10
We belong to John 17:9
John 17:6
. . .
Savior
1 Tim. 1:1; 2:3; 4:10
2 Tim. 1:10; Titus 1:4; 3:6
. . .
We serve Matt. 4:10
Col. 3:24
. . .
Believe in John 14:1
John 14:1
. . .
Gives joy . . . John 15:11
John 14:7
Judges John 8:50
John 5:22,30
. . .
Therefore, the doctrine of the Trinity is arrived at by looking at the whole of scripture, not in a single verse. It is the doctrine that there is only one God, not three, and that the one God exists in three persons: Father, the Son, and the Holy Spirit. An analogy would be time. Time is past, present, and future. But, there are not three times, only one.
Thanks again, I appreciate your response. I have read your comment a few times in order to be sure that I fully understand what you are saying.
ReplyDeleteBecause I agree with what you are saying, therefore I will not respond point for point but rather I point out the difference between your line of thinking and my line of thinking so that we might be in unity of understanding the issue of the term 'salvation' :-)
In your view and explanation, you are not dividing the term 'salvation' into two, you think that all salvation is monergistic, God does everything and men can do nothing. God saves first and then we respond with works.
In my view and explanation, I DIVIDE the term 'salvation' into two.
The monergistic view, in which God does everything in salvation (as a free gift), but only in the new-birth salvation and only for the elect, His children.
And synergistic, in all OTHER salvation in which ALL men (the elect and the non-elect (reject) must repent and believe in order to be saved.
Now, we should not amalgamate those two terms with Scripture passages, otherwise we will be confused.
I divide the Scripture passages which belong to the new birth salvation from those passages who belong to the salvation which for everyone by doing something like repenting and believing etc.
You see, If I ask you a question, can a man be saved if he does absolutely nothing ?
If you say NO; then you believe that he can only be saved by doing something (works), and that gives you the reason to preach the gospel.
If you say YES; then you don't need to preach the gospel because God will save him anyway (apart from his works). And if He saves him apart from his works, then why does He not save ALL (everyone without exception) apart from their works ? It is the will of God that none would perish, but ALL be saved.
Yes I do believe that God ordained ALL things. Nothing came into being apart from Him (Jesus).
I can see in the Scriptures that He planned to give salvation, life from the dead (the new birth) only to His children the elect from before the foundation of the world and He rejected Satan's children in order that election might stand.
In short, ONE salvation for the elect alone by grace alone.
The other salvation which is for everyone by faith and believing etc. which amounts to (works).
"The Trinity Chart".
You said, "It is the doctrine that there is only one God, not three,"
Oh I love you for saying that :-)
That will be very easy for you. Since you think that there is only ONE God and not three, then please tell me which ONE?
Note, I have asked you which ONE and not which two or which three or which four etc. ;-)
I will respond by referencing your paragraphs by number, and hopefully make it less posts this time ;-)
ReplyDeletePara 3 - Actually we are compelled to respond by the HS and it is all the work of God, Jesus and the Holy Spirit – so there is no work by man, it is all a gift (Eph 2:8,9). In the Ordo chart what I am showing is that all work that glorifies God is done by God because we are under the control of the HS. Salvation that does not save that is done by human works whether thought by mankind to be “good” are actually sin.
Para 4 - In your category of elect rejecting, that would not be salvation but they would still be under damnation up until the time that the HS regenerates them. For the non-elect – they never will be regenerate so they will never have the HS nor will they be able to respond. Those in that category can only sin on into eternity (ref W. G. T. Shedd’s Eternal Punishment volume).
Para 5 - But no man can repent because he hates God and has a heart of stone, is spiritually dead, loves darkness and hates light.
Para 6 - Actually you ignore the work of God the Father, the Son and the Holy Spirit (HS) as they do the work in heaven, on the cross and on the earth. When I teach I may be in front of 10 or 300 people so let’s assume 100. I do not know the spiritual condition of most. Scripture commands me to present the Gospel. When that is done those that are already believer’s (regenerated sheep) will recognize the proclamation. Those that the HS regenerate (were lost sheep and now they know they are not goats) believe. The reprobate (goats) continue in that group hating God to their eventual death. Now not all unregenerate in that group will believe – recall that the Ordo chart is just the LOGICAL not chronological order. So over time the HS may bring to recollection what was said and later they believe. I had a guy on one of my construction sites look me up 15 years later to not only tell me he was a believer but now a pastor but that was not the case when we were talking years ago. He does not save all because some vessels are made for destruction. Rem3ember desire on God’s part is not a decree that it will come to pass. Consider His commandments (10) in the OT – that was not only a desire but a command to do. So scripture is clear that NOT all will be saved but only MANY.
Para 8 - There is no salvation by works righteousness else the praying Pharisee would have been a believer. What you are describing is a non-salvation as any who use their own works must use their own righteousness and therefore they lack the righteousness of Christ and therefore they remain unsaved. Recall the wheat and the tares parable – those are various descriptions of people who appear to be sheep but in fact are goats and think that works righteousness will get them in. God’ has only had one plan from eternity past through Genesis 3 and ending in Revelation and that is salvation by grace alone (Sola Gracia).
End note - As I said the chart is by Matt Slick and provided the web site link – my goal in that chart was to demonstrate that the Father, Son and Holy Spirit share attributes or essence. This singular God (Elohim – plural 3 or more) is manifested in 3 persons – the most common example is at the baptism of Jesus. Additionally there are other Theophanies and Christophanies in scripture as well as the Holy Spirit as the “other comforter”. If you would like I would suggest you read the following: The Belgic confession Article 8 & 9; the Second Helvetic Confession Major Section III articles 3-5; Westminster Confession of Faith Chapter II article 3; Westminster Shorter Catechism Q 6 and answer and the Lager Catechism Q 9 and 10 and answers. All of those also have specific section relating to the Father and the Son and the concept of the hypostatic union. Additionally look up the associated scripture references. I can proved all that if needed but all should be available on the internet. Lastly you may want to read up on the issues relating to the heresies of the early church and those early church councils – Nicea, Calcedon etc.
ReplyDeletePaul, some more thoughts. Your focus on rejecting the Trinity leads me to think you are not familiar with the early heresies the church had to face. Israel generally understood God as singular and took the plural usage of “us” and “we” to mean the royal use much like a king would say “We are not amused.” But they struggled with the plural use of the word Elohim with the “im” ending. So in the NT several concepts arose. One which you are assuming I am advocating was 3 separate gods which is polytheism which the major group known for that is Mormonism and also I would add the Jehovah’s Witnesses for their abuse of John 1:1 calling Jesus “a” god. Meaning there are at least two a major God and an minor god or demi-god. Another possibility is there is an overall God which encompasses the three persons that are also God being the Father Son and HS meaning there are 4 gods – it does recognize the three persons but God is something more than the other 3 – again demi-god like. Yet another is modalistic in that God will appear as the father or then appear as the Son or then appear as the HS – God a single being appears in different modes. Of course the big problem with that view is the baptism of Jesus. Another view is the Supreme God (Father) view which as in an org chart has Jesus and the HS under him in parallel positions. Yet another view takes that view and encompasses it with God encircling the org chart view maintaining the father in a hierarchical position. There is also a Gnostic God view with the Father on Top, the Son Below and the HS below him as an authority chain.
ReplyDeleteNow there are some groups who deny the deity of Jesus and the HS. They express God incorrectly as Jehovah (misapplying the German) rather than the proper Hebrew Yahweh. But at any rate they show Yahweh as God with a created Jesus being human and at his death returning to the Yahweh God. Also they show Yahweh’s Spirit just being a “power” and being manifested to mankind. Unfortunately as seen in the trinity chart verses the HS is not a power or force but actually as “person” attributes. This is typically what I run into frequently. I had a University of Central Florida Professor come by with his disciple and want to talk with me while I was working on my car in the garage. The disciple took the lead and questions moved quickly to the deity of Jesus. I have a rather large collection of materials and books from the organization including several marked up Bibles and Greek NTs. So challenging me they said “Where would you like to start?” I said “Let’s start in the back of your Bible at Rev 22:12 and then Rev 1:8 and you tell me who is talking in both cases.” In both cases the response I got was God. I said “Who is the God that is talking, the name?” I got back God Jehovah. So I asked “Who is the Alpha and the Omega in each case?” So I still got Jehovah. Then I asked the disciple to read Rev 22:16 and oddly enough at that point the Professor said to his disciple we need to visit other houses. As they left I told the disciple to come back sometime and we will discuss this further but he did not.
Paul, One more thought on the idea of 2 types of salvation - this by Calvin and thoroughly monergistic:
ReplyDelete"For if a man asks us why God has chosen us, why he has enlightened us, and hath left so many miserable and wretched in blindness, why he changed us and turned us to him by his Holy Spirit, and others remain in their hardness, we cannot say that we are better than they, and therefore God preferred us before those whom he left alone, neither that we are worthier than they; there is not such matter. So what was it then? We must come to that which is spoken in the eleventh chapter to the Romans. When he speaks of the judgments of God he cries out, How incomprehensible are your ways! And who has given to him that he should repay them? Who can brag that he has brought anything of his own that he may say that God should be moved to love him more than another? No, no, men are void of all goodness, there is nothing in them but confusion and shame of face, and God accepts and calls whom he wants, and calls them in such a way that there is no goodness in them, but he changes them, and renews them by the grace of his Holy Spirit, that where they were inheritors of death, where there was nothing in them but curse, he reforms them to his image, he plants life and an incorruptible seed in them. When we know these things, what can we say, but be astonished and cry out as St. Paul does there. What a bottomless pit is the grace of God! How incomprehensible are his ways! So then let us mark well that we shall never know our redemption thoroughly until we come to that astonishment which was in St. Paul, and which ought to be in all the faithful." - John Calvin, Sermons on 1 Timothy
Yes, again, we believe similar in the free gift salvation, which is born from the death to life.
ReplyDeleteBut we differ from the works based salvation, where you think that a man cannot be saved by works or by doing something like believing and apply faith etc.
Perhaps we can look in Luke 18:42 Jesus said, 'YOUR faith has SAVED you'.
It doesn't say that he was saved from death unto life (born again). No, he was only saved from blindness, and that is because he believed and came to Jesus to give him eyesight, and nothing else.
If he would have done nothing, he would NOT have been saved from blindness.
For this kind of salvation a person must DO something in order to be saved.
John 5:34 Jesus said, 'but I say these things so that you may be saved'. It seems that the Lord requires us to believe in order to be saved, and anything which is required from us is called works.
Acts 16:31 'They said, believe in the Lord Jesus, and you will be saved.
You have quoted Rev. 22:12, where the Lord repays for what he has done, good or bad, indicates that a man can do good or bad.
Para 5 - Also it seems to me that a man can repent, otherwise the Commandments would be useless. Why give a command, if he can't do it?
In my understanding, it is impossible for any man to repent but only for the salvation which is from the dead (spiritual dead state) to be born again, that is a free gift of God and boasting is excluded.
Concerning the trinity.
Yes I understand that the chart is by Matt Slick, but what do you think.
Does that make sense to you, if God is three persons, then they are three gods, each person ONE God, equals three gods.
And if they all are God together, then the word 'God' has become a CONCEPT, and therefore we cannot call God 'HE'.
He refers to ONE person and THEY refers to THREE persons or more, and three God-persons would be called 'the gods'.
In the Bible God is ALWAYS addressed as 'HE' and never as THEY (the gods).
Paul - this will be another split post and a little out of sequence from your response. I am going to start with the Trinity comments and then move back to the top.
ReplyDeleteI have no major issues with the Matt Slick chart, the verses in context are correct as to the attributes of the person Jesus described as the Father, the verses describing the attributes of Jesus are also correct as well as the Holy Spirit. So the question you must face is are those attributes ones that indicate a “person”. If you read the verses in context you would say yes. So now the problem is much like one I have when I worked with a Pakistani Muslim some years back. He understood one God but not the 3 persons as you do not. So I asked him who he was and he said he is Shameem. I asked him who I was and he said my name. I asked him do we share certain characteristics he said yes, male, have degrees, eat food (he liked bacon!) and both liked tennis. I then asked him what category/species would you classify us? He said human. So I said then our being is human but we are both persons – one category of being but 2 persons. At that point he understood that he, like you are not seeing the category of God as His being, consisting of 3 persons. So now I give you homework as I do in regular classes (had my Friday one this morning and that coincidentally was on Trinitarian heresies) – I need you to go to the Revelation verses I noted (and yes the verse I meant was 22:13 – it was a typo) in the previous post and read them in context (context is king) even if you have to read both chapters do so, but I want you to list for yourself in each verse section who is talking in each case in the context. Now I will tell you that whoever is the Alpha and Omega is God – but what I want you to do is tell me is it the God that Jesus called Father or is it Jesus Himself or is it both - one in one end of Revelation and the other in the other end of Revelation. As concerns the Hebrew word “EL” – that is singular as in El-Shaddai, but Elohim is plural – the “im” ending makes it plural. So the OT already has “God” as singular and plural. And yes the Hebrews knew, and still know this and believed in one God. Now let’s talk Greek for a moment. I do not know your background but in the earliest manuscripts the Greek texts are in all capital letters and all run together with no punctuation. You can go on line and pull up some of the "P" manuscripts if you like (P52). But one of the things that was done by the writers was to make an overstrike above the key letters to let the reader know that deity or God was being referred to. So when you see the work PNEUMA - Spirit, there would be an overstrike or line above the PN to let the reader know this Spirit should have a capital “S” as it was deity. This is one of the reason it was easy to identify the Holy Spirit as God when only the word PNEUMA was in the text because of the overstrike. The same with other words used to represent deity THEOS would have the TH or Theta with an overstrike. So that is why when you read your Bible you know when you see words capitalized it is because of the early manuscripts indicated the deity. So yes, the Trinity is valid if you will keep the category of One Being distinct from three persons – Father, Son and HS.
Luke 18:42 – always stick with the context as context is king. I tend to work from the Greek texts so the first thing I wanted to do is read what is going on in the passage as I am sure you did. We have a person being healed of blindness and he asks Jesus to have mercy on him – twice. Jesus asked him what did he want Jesus to do and the man responded with Lord, that I may receive my sight. Note this was not a request for salvation but for healing in the context. There is a tendency for people to read into this salvation and I will explain why next. The response is “Recover your sight your faith has made you well”. Now you should ask why did my version have “well” rather than “saved”? The root word is sozo pronounced sodzo with long O’s with the actual word in the text being sesoken and in Strong’s sozo would likely be translated as saved. But Strong’s does not consider context. If you want context you need to go to a lexicon that considers context like Louw Nida and here is what that lexicon says: to cause someone to become well again after having been sick—‘to heal, to cure, to make well, healing.’18 Footnote 18 below
ReplyDelete18 It is possible that διασῴζωb is somewhat more emphatic in meaning than σῴζωc. It is also possible that in a number of contexts σῴζωc and διασῴζωb may have the added implication of having rescued such persons from a state of illness.
Louw, J. P., & Nida, E. A. (1996). Greek-English lexicon of the New Testament: based on semantic domains (electronic ed. of the 2nd edition., Vol. 1, p. 268). New York: United Bible Societies.
Bottom line is there was NO salvation involved. I know some will reference that God intentionally makes people blind, deaf and unable to understand – but that is because He does not want them regenerated as they are made for destruction (Romans 9 – an assignment to read).
John 5:34 – once again context! Jesus had claimed He was God in verse 17 and the Jews sought to kill Him for blasphemy verse 18 – that Trinity keeps sneaking in doesn’t it. Read verses 19 and following – another assignment! Note in 23 the Father Judges no one but that is committed to the Son. And what of verse 23? Now we get to the heart of the section verse 24. What we see in that verse is why we have Paul saying faith comes by hearing and hearing by the word of God. That faith is not within us as our righteousness is as filthy (menstrual) rags. Eph 2:8&9 tell us there are 3 things we get immediately – and they are all gifts – grace, salvation and those only come by means of the third gift, faith. Faith is first, then grace and salvation. If God does not provide the faith through that process of regeneration then all our good deeds are wood, hay and stubble – those “rags”. There is mothering in man that will even allow him to choose God as noted above God actively prevents people from believing and even hardens them – recall Pharaoh? Moving on – Jesus coves the resurrection and judgement then in verse 32 He talks about “another witness”. In 33 he mentions John the Baptist as bearing witness to the truth but in verse 34 He says He does not receive the testimony of man – so now who is the other witness? Hint - could it be the Father and the HS as 2 witnesses were required in Levitical law. He concludes the verse by saying essentially that he said all the previous that you may be saved. The “saved – is a subjunctive of potential meaning it is possible for the HS to regenerate some but not all – but recall that group wanted to kill Jesus so I do not hold high hopes for the Spirit to have regenerated many. Probably all Barabbas supporters. Remember the Spirit compels the person to believe just as he prevents, blinds, deafens and make their understanding dull.
Acts 16:31 is one of my favorite verses and you actually did not quote the entire verse. One of the neat things about Acts is it is a book of transition. Peter introduces the Gospel to the Jews, Samaritans and Gentiles, then Paul becomes the Apostle to the Gentiles. As Luke writes Acts we see him shorten the salvific process description and this is about as short a description as you can get – but it is not the Gospel – can you provide at least 2 places where the Gospel message is given? Yes another homework assignment. Notice in the rest of the verse the inclusion of the “family” or “household” – what is going on with that? Yep more homework. Now you say believing is a work – I say yes it is but it is the work of Christ and the HS – recall the gifts mentioned in Ephesians 2:8&9? – Faith – belief – pistis (Greek) is that gift and it comes from God not man. We are not born from a human birth with this faith. This is what makes the believer a "New Creation" or creature the Greek word is ktisis meaning new in kind, something that has never existed before.
ReplyDeleteParagraph 5 – My you have just asked the question answer by Augustine in the Pelagian controversy – Yes you guessed it – you need to read that also. It is on line. Pelagius questioned Augustine’s prayer and Pelagius' position was much like yours man must have some spark of goodness in him to be able to do what God commands. Now I agree it is impossible for any man ever to repent unless God changes his heart of stone to a heart of flesh. After that yes he then can – I would also ask you to print out the Ordo Salutis chart on this site and check all the verses starting from the left and work to the right. Please check the context as well if you are concerned I am just proof texting verses. My purpose in all of this is to get you to do some of the digging on your own and really think through the passages and what is going on in context. I look forward to your comments.
Paul, I have been thinking some more on the Divinity of Jesus and am going to copy some information from another guy here in Florida but over on the West coast – he goes by the name TurretinFan. In addition to his comments I want you to note in the Jude text some additional things. There were men ordained or designated as ungodly – this means they will never believe and should cause you to recall Romans 9 the vessels made for destruction. Also pay attention to the issue over the use of “Lord” – note God is called that as well as Jesus. The second thing is the notation of the Granville Sharp rule. That rule says that with certain instances the use of the conjunction “and” kai with the definite article that makes the two things being discussed the same identity. If you are not familiar with the term “periscope”, it is just the section of scripture or a natural break in the text making a section. And yes this will be split. Here starts his comments:
ReplyDeleteJude 5 provides another evidence of Jesus' divinity in the modern versions. In the KJV, Jude includes the following pair of pericopes:
Jude 3-7
Beloved, when I gave all diligence to write unto you of the common salvation, it was needful for me to write unto you, and exhort you that ye should earnestly contend for the faith which was once delivered unto the saints. For there are certain men crept in unawares, who were before of old ordained to this condemnation, ungodly men, turning the grace of our God into lasciviousness, and denying the only Lord God, and our Lord Jesus Christ.
I will therefore put you in remembrance, though ye once knew this, how that the Lord, having saved the people out of the land of Egypt, afterward destroyed them that believed not. And the angels which kept not their first estate, but left their own habitation, he hath reserved in everlasting chains under darkness unto the judgment of the great day. Even as Sodom and Gomorrha, and the cities about them in like manner, giving themselves over to fornication, and going after strange flesh, are set forth for an example, suffering the vengeance of eternal fire.
In this version, Jude is stating the "the Lord" saved the people out of Egypt.
Moreover, the KJV leaves some ambiguity as to what "Lord" refers to there, because of some ambiguity in the expression "only Lord God, our Lord Jesus Christ." While that expression is itself an affirmation of Jesus' divinity, a reader might mistakenly view the "and" as suggesting that "only Lord God" refers to the Father, while "Lord Jesus Christ" refers to the son, instead of recognizing that both refer to the son.
By contrast, in the ESV, the pericopes are as follows:
Jude 3-7
Beloved, although I was very eager to write to you about our common salvation, I found it necessary to write appealing to you to contend for the faith that was once for all delivered to the saints. For certain people have crept in unnoticed who long ago were designated for this condemnation, ungodly people, who pervert the grace of our God into sensuality and deny our only Master and Lord, Jesus Christ.
Now I want to remind you, although you once fully knew it, that Jesus, who saved a people out of the land of Egypt, afterward destroyed those who did not believe. And the angels who did not stay within their own position of authority, but left their proper dwelling, he has kept in eternal chains under gloomy darkness until the judgment of the great day— just as Sodom and Gomorrah and the surrounding cities, which likewise indulged in sexual immorality and pursued unnatural desire, serve as an example by undergoing a punishment of eternal fire.
In the second pericope, it becomes unequivocal that Jesus is the one who saved the people out of Egypt and keeps the fallen angels in the place of darkness, things that require Jesus' pre-incarnate personal existence.
It's not just his pre-incarnate personal existence, though. The redemption from Egypt is the key identifier of YHWH as the God of Israel in the Old Testament:
TurretinFan continues with his list of OT verses:
ReplyDeleteExodus 20:2 I am the Lord thy God, which have brought thee out of the land of Egypt, out of the house of bondage.
Exodus 29:46 And they shall know that I am the Lord their God, that brought them forth out of the land of Egypt, that I may dwell among them: I am the Lord their God.
Leviticus 11:45 For I am the Lord that bringeth you up out of the land of Egypt, to be your God: ye shall therefore be holy, for I am holy.
Numbers 15:41 I am the Lord your God, which brought you out of the land of Egypt, to be your God: I am the Lord your God.
Deuteronomy 5:6 I am the Lord thy God, which brought thee out of the land of Egypt, from the house of bondage.
Joshua 24:17 For the Lord our God, he it is that brought us up and our fathers out of the land of Egypt, from the house of bondage, and which did those great signs in our sight, and preserved us in all the way wherein we went, and among all the people through whom we passed:
Psalm 81:10 I am the Lord thy God, which brought thee out of the land of Egypt: open thy mouth wide, and I will fill it.
Daniel 9:15 And now, O Lord our God, that hast brought thy people forth out of the land of Egypt with a mighty hand, and hast gotten thee renown, as at this day; we have sinned, we have done wickedly.
This is why it is no small thing for Jude to identify Jesus as the one who brought up Israel out of Egypt.
The interesting thing about this example is that while the ESV strengthens the identification of Jesus as God in the second pericope, the ESV arguably weakens the identification of Jesus as God in the first pericope. After all, the word "God" is no longer used in the expression, even though it is more clear that both references to "Lord" are to Jesus.
This argument for Jesus' divinity works in either version, and does not depend on the text one chooses. If one chooses the Textus Receptus, keep in mind that the Greek is this:
... καὶ τὸν μόνον δεσπότην Θεὸν, καὶ Κύριον ἡμῶν Ἰησοῦν Χριστὸν ἀρνούμενοι ὑπομνῆσαι δὲ ὑμᾶς βούλομαι, εἰδότας ὑμᾶς ἅπαξ τοῦτο, ὅτι ὁ Κύριος λαὸν ἐκ γῆς Αἰγύπτου σώσας, ...
First, the construction "τὸν μόνον δεσπότην Θεὸν, καὶ Κύριον ἡμῶν Ἰησοῦν Χριστὸν" is an example of the Granville Sharp construction, and consequently both "μόνον δεσπότην Θεὸν" (only master God) and "Κύριον ἡμῶν Ἰησοῦν Χριστὸν" (our Lord Jesus Christ) refer to the same person.
Even setting aside Granville Sharp's Rule, and assuming for the sake of argument that δεσπότην Θεὸν referred to the Father as distinct from Christ, the term used in verse five is Κύριος, the term used of Jesus in the immediately prior pericope. In other words, while the KJV obscures the fact that there are two different words for Lord used in verse 4, there are two different words for Lord used there, and it is the latter one - the one used for Jesus - that is then used again in verse 5. Thus, even if verse 4 itself does not provide that Jesus is God, verse 5 provides that Jesus is God, even in the KJV (assuming one is willing to refer back to the Greek).
The NA28 Greek text (the current "critical text") reads: "... καὶ τὸν μόνον δεσπότην καὶ κύριον ἡμῶν Ἰησοῦν Χριστὸν ἀρνούμενοι. Ὑπομνῆσαι δὲ ὑμᾶς βούλομαι, εἰδότας ὑμᾶς ἅπαξ πάντα ὅτι Ἰησοῦς λαὸν ἐκ γῆς Αἰγύπτου σώσας ... " Those seem to be the readings followed by the ESV translators, although actually in this case I think that the ESV translators adopted the "Jesus" reading before the Nestle-Aland editors adopted it.
In case you were wondering, the New World Translation does its best to further obscure this testimony to Jesus' divinity. The translation the NWT provides is: "... who prove false to our only owner and Lord, Jesus Christ. Although you are fully aware of all of this, I want to remind you that Jehovah, having saved a people out of the land of Egypt, ... "
Last part has a graphic and it is not pasting - so I added the link - you should be able to right click on it and do "a save as" or "download" It will be a pdf file and go to page 1070 and check the end of verse 4 and start of verse 5 in the left interlinear column and then compare to the right hand column which is the JW "translation". As an aside I will use all 3 versions of their translations to show novices how much the "Organization" changes scripture over time. Anyway he continues:
ReplyDeleteNevertheless, the 1969 Kingdom Interlinear provides evidence of the selective translation going on:
https://ia902707.us.archive.org/3/items/KingdomInterlinearGreekScriptures/Kingdom_Interlinear-Greek_Scriptures_1969.pdf
Notice that on the interlinear side the word for "Lord" in "Lord Jesus Christ" is the same word as is used in the very next verse as being the "Lord" who brought the people out of Egypt. The NWT translators selectively translated the latter one as "Jehovah," because they recognized that it was a reference to YHWH. However, in the original Greek it becomes clear that this is referring to the person of Jesus Christ mentioned in the immediately previous verse.
Concerning the trinity, I don't think that an attribute is a person, an attribute is something that belongs to person.
ReplyDeleteAnd I have carefully read what you have asked me to do.
You said, 'Now I will tell you that whoever is the Alpha and Omega is God '.
Yes I also believe that, but please read Revelation 22:16 there we see that it is the Lord Jesus who is speaking and in Rev. 1:8 Jesus said, that He is the Alpha and Omega, and in 1:18 Jesus said that He is the first and the Last, which means the Alpha and the Omega, and in 2:18 Jesus said, that He is the first and the last, who was dead and has come to life.
You see, it is the Lord Jesus who is speaking in Revelation, and in (22:20) 'He who testifies to these things says, "Yes I am coming quickly".
Who is the one who is coming quickly? Well, we both know that has to be Jesus.
I believe that only Jesus is God and NO other, He is the Father and the Son and the Holy Spirit, those are three titles who belong to Jesus Christ our Lord.
You said, 'but what I want you to do is tell me is it the God that Jesus called Father or is it Jesus Himself or is it both '.
Well, I think that, if the Lord Jesus would have a Father, He definitely would NOT be God, since God cannot have a Father, otherwise there would be something drastically wrong.
The Scriptures tells us that the Lord Jesus is without mother or father or genealogy etc. etc. in Hebr. 7:3.
And in John 10:30 the Lord Jesus made it very clear that He and the Father are ONE, meaning one and the same.
If Jesus would NOT be the Father, then Jesus and the Father would be TWO.
If Jesus would be in union or in agreement with another person called Father, then Jesus and the Father would be TWO etc. etc.
That must be the reason why Jesus said, 'he who has seen Me has seen the Father (John 14:9)', or the Prophet Isaiah said that the Lord Jesus will be called the everlasting Father (Isa. 9:6), can you see, there is no second person who is a God, called Father.
Yes, I believe just like you that the Lord Jesus is the Lord God the Almighty, but I believe that Jesus is ALONE that God, while you think that there are two more persons who are also God, that's where we differ.
Concerning salvation.
As to Luke 18:42, the blind man was NOT sick, he didn't need to be healed or to be made well, he needed to be SAVED from staying blind the rest of his earthly life.
I was reading from the KJV Bible, and it says 'SAVED'.
It should not say 'made well', because he wasn't sick and he didn't need healing.
And note, Jesus said, 'YOUR faith has SAVED you', that suggests, that it was something of him that saved him (salvation by works).
Continued on next page.
Peter said to Jesus as he was beginning to sink into the water, 'Lord SAVE me' (Mat. 14:30). Well, we both know that Peter needed to be SAVED from drowning, he didn't need to be made well from sickness, or need to be healed from drowning. And there are many more examples like that.
ReplyDeleteCan you see that not every salvation is the same.
In the Bible I can see only ONE salvation which by grace ALONE apart from works lest any man should boast and that is the salvation which is from our spiritual dead state unto spiritual life, the new birth. And for any other salvation we need to do something, either come to Jesus, or call upon His Name, or believe and activate our faith and DO what the Lord has commanded us, which amounts to works etc. etc.
Well, I have a simple mind and I don't make things complicated so that none can understand. Some of those Bible Societies and Colleges make the Scriptures too difficult to understand.
You said, 'I want to remind you that Jehovah, having saved a people out of the land of Egypt, ... "
No that is not true, Jehovah can NOT save, the Bible says, that there is NO OTHER Name give in heaven and on earth whereby we must be saved (Acts 4:12).
Yes I know that the Jehovah Witnesses have their own translation, the New World Translation.
And they don't believe that Jesus is God. I wonder whether they have ever read Col. 1:15-20 and John 1:3-10.
John 5:23 you said, 'Note in 23 the Father Judges no one but that is committed to the Son.'
Well, that has to be metaphoric, or else there are TWO Gods and we are NOT allowed to believe in TWO Gods.
Note, Father is a title and also 'Son' is a title. Those two titles belong to one person Jesus Christ who is God over all (Rom. 9:5).
Eph. 2:8-9, I cannot see that there are three gifts, salvation is not a gift, grace is not a gift, and faith is not a gift in that regard, although God has given ALL men a measure of faith.
I think that the free gift is to be born from the dead unto life eternal, or simply 'LIFE' (Eph.2:1), the new birth.
For a free gift, NOTHING is needed from us, NO faith, and NO grace, NO co-operation absolutely nothing from us, otherwise it's not a free gift. Remember, we were DEAD in sins and trespasses.
It was the initiative of Jesus Christ to first regenerates us (Born again) and after we are alive, we operate in faith, works believe etc. and not the other way around.
Now any other salvation is NOT a free gift. We need to believe in the Lord Jesus Christ and then, after we will be saved from whatever we have believed. Now the Scripture is full of examples of that.
In contrast, you believe that faith makes a human being a new creation, you said, "This is what makes the believer a "New Creation".
No it does NOT, it is the free gift of God which makes a man a new creation.
You said, 'Now you say believing is a work – I say yes it is but it is the work of Christ and the HS'
I don't think that the Lord Jesus needs to do the believing for us. It is a command to us to believe on the Lord Jesus Christ and then we will be saved and if we do NOT believe we will perish.
I think that you are mixing the passages which belong to the new birth salvation with the passages that belong to to every other salvation, or as your friend has said, a 'common salvation'.
Paul, this is probably going to be a multiple post again, so bear with me as I try and organize it. I am taking into consideration of your comment on background and will therefore explain with more detail than I normally would. It also took me longer as I teach classes on Wednesday and Friday each week and of course involved on Sundays. I generally prep the day before so my free day is sort of Monday.
ReplyDeleteI am really glad to see you response on the JW translations to English – yes they are truly abominations but oddly enough the interlinear Greek text and the literal translation is not too bad it only gets really bad when they create their own English text next to the Greek. I would also note they have recently done another update to their interlinear and this time they also made changes to the literal translation found under the Greek text. You can find a decent on line source at Bible.org for an interlinear.
Your comment on attribute is exactly correct a person has those attributes – that takes you back to the Matt Slick chart that shows the verses for those divine attributes for the 3 persons of the Trinity (I hope you looked up those verses). Also a person is described with person pronouns such as he, she, they, we, you, your, our, and even it if a neuter is being addresses (examples would be eunuchs and neutered animals also when you see a new born child you might ask “what is it?”) We will get into that later,
Your responses fall into a couple of areas. First you have clarified finally that you do believe there is a God that is Jesus and a God that is the Father and a God that is the HS. My assumption based on past comments is that you did not accept Jesus or the HS as God – I am glad that point is cleared up. However the way you described it “I believe that only Jesus is God and NO other, He is the Father and the Son and the Holy Spirit, those are three titles who belong to Jesus Christ our Lord.“ Most likely put you in the camp of “Modalism”. Currently the best known modalist living is T. D. Jakes. It is generally called modalistic Monarchianism and I will provide some information from one of my sources:
Monarchianism. A theological movement in the 2nd and 3rd cents. In its attempt to safeguard *Monotheism and the Unity (‘Monarchy’) of the Godhead, the movement became heretical, as it failed to do justice to the independent subsistence of the Son. There were two distinct groups of Monarchian theologians. (1) The ‘*Adoptionist’ or ‘Dynamic’ Monarchians, who included *Artemon, two persons named *Theodotus, and perhaps also *Paul of Samosata, They maintained that Jesus was God only in the sense that a power or influence from the Father rested upon His human person. (2) The ‘Modalist’ Monarchians or *Sabellians, of whom the most notable were *Noetus, *Praxeas, and Sabellius. They held that in the Godhead the only differentiation was a mere succession of modes or operations. They were also called ‘*Patripassians’, as it was a corollary of their doctrine that the Father suffered as the Son. The term monarchia, in itself susceptible of a perfectly orthodox meaning, was used as a slogan by *Tertullian’s opponents (Adv. Praxean, 3 and 9) who thus came to be known as ‘Monarchians’.
Footnote: Cross, F. L., & Livingstone, E. A. (Eds.). (2005). In The Oxford dictionary of the Christian Church (3rd ed. rev., pp. 1108–1109). Oxford; New York: Oxford University Press.
Continuing 2: Usually one the most difficult passage for the Sabellian or Patripassians was the baptism of Jesus with the Father speaking and the HS coming down as (in the appearance of) a Dove (the other is the death of Jesus on the cross). Most modalists consider this as 3 manifestations or modes that God appears in, but from the text you can see these are 3 distinct “somethings”. Modalists view the single God with wearing different "masks" when facing mankind so this is an issue (think Greek tragedy plays as this is the source of the concept where a mask was held up to represent sadness or joy by the speaker). I can provide more information on this as these non-orthodox beliefs were characterized as heresies in the first 3 centuries of the church and are what I am teaching on Fridays for the next 5 weeks or so – I can provide my 14 page teaching document if you would like but would need an email address.
ReplyDeleteModalism brings up several concerns relating to Jesus. You have not commented on the issue of the hypostatic union of Jesus. So the questions you would need to address are: when did God become Jesus the man, was He always Jesus, how much of Jesus was God and how much was man, who died on the cross? Where was God when Jesus died and who was in the tomb? When Jesus died on the cross He gave up (dismissed) His spirit – was that the human spirit or the HS? Did God die on the cross and how does God's dying or not dying on the cross impact justification? All these questions including modalism were addressed in the early centuries during the formation of the church.
I also must assume you now understand the use of plurals in Hebrew and Aramaic can have a singular God and plural God (El & Elohim) as a modalist you must deny the plural and force it to be singular. Recall John 10:30 – your quote was – “I and the Father are one” – but that is not what the text really says – it says “I and the Father WE are one.” Once again we have a plural of persons! The “are” is a first person plural which in Greek grammar makes it “We are”. Jesus is not saying He is the Father or the father is Jesus but that they are both persons. Also look at verse 28 and 29 for context. Additionally what is meant by John in 1 John 4:9-11? God is begetting Himself and so the Son is another person, verse 11 is also written from a dual person aspect. I suspect you would have the Son being the Father and then back again and then becoming the Spirit. Side note on verse 12 – notice that “no one has seen God at any time” – why is that? Because Jesus is the God man (hypostatic union) which I think goes well with your concern over “If you have seen me, you have seen the Father” – had they seen the Father – no, they saw Jesus as a man claiming to be God, hence the desire to stone him. So look at 1 Peter 1:2 – God the Father, in sanctification (set apart) of the Spirit, for the obedience and sprinkling of the blood of Christ. Clearly 3 personages of the one God. 1 Cor 6:11…but you were washed (regenerated – Titus 3:5), but you were sanctified (set apart), but you were justified (made just) in the name of the lord Jesus – one person – and by the Spirit of our God – another person that is of our God as a 3 person unit. You should also have a problem with Romans 8:9-11 – who is the “He” that raised Christ – remember the use of all these pronouns relates to “being” and especially personhood. I strongly suggest a book titled The Forgotten Trinity by James R. White it is a well footnoted volume in paperback. Also follow the following link and read articles 8 & 9 concerning the Trinity including the verses which are linked in the text.: http://www.esvbible.org/resources/creeds-and-catechisms/article-the-belgic-confession-1561/#0827
Continuing 3: The next area I want to discuss is the use of “sozo” in scripture. Salvation (sozo) in relation to eternal salvation which includes the act of regeneration is made clear by use of a contextual lexicon. As the word has a range of meanings and many are used in a non-eternal salvation manner. My point in Luke was to demonstrate that the word is by context incorrectly translated as “save” in that passage and it is referring to Jesus act of healing (clearly faith healers are a hoax) – same with Matt 14:30 – that is another shade of the meaning of sozo – “to rescue” in context.
ReplyDeleteSo I realized that you do not work with Greek or Hebrew/Aramaic texts. Complexity of learning should not be a hindrance – all you need to do is get some basic tools. May I suggest a good interlinear with the words parsed as a starting point – The English-Greek Reverse Interlinear New Testament by Crossway is excellent because it adjusts the Greek word order to match the English rather than the Greek order as in that Kingdom interlinear version. Also there are some good on-line resources that have interlinear type helps (http://www.biblestudytools.com/interlinear-bible/#). Another book that is easy to read is called New Testament Text and Translation Commentary by Philip W. Comfort (do not confuse with Ray Comfort) – this covers all the variant readings of the NT manuscripts and how they relate to the English translations. It is easy to use. On Bible translations in general – I have no issues with the KJV but I teach from the NKJV.
If you have never read the original introduction to the KJV, you should do so, it is out there on line, several pages long and the writers clearly indicate that they knew they had made errors and expected later reviewers to correct them. Most KJV Bibles intentionally shorten the writer’s comments or ignore completely. So I think we can agree there may be other incorrectly translated terms that use the word “save” but they do not in context mean eternal salvation and that goes back to my comment that there really is only one means of eternal salvation.
Clearly you understand my point on this based on your comment on my comment about Jehovah saving a people out of Egypt – you took issue that Jehovah did not save – but the text clearly talks about that mixed multitude being saved. You note clearly it is not salvation and I am sure by that you mean “eternal salvation” and that the salvation out of Egypt means “rescued” – and that was temporal as only two of the entire group made it into the promised land Joshua (Heb. Jeshua, Jesus) and Caleb (Heb. Dog). Another area of an interesting use of sozo is with Noah in 1 Peter 3:18-21. Side note in verse 18 – note that it was the work of the Holy Spirit that made alive Christ. In verse 20 see the comment about Noah – “eight souls were saved through water”. Were they saved to eternal life or rescued from perishing since God shut the door for them? Their “baptism” was a dry baptism and everyone else got wet and died. So verse 21 clarifies for us what baptism we are talking about – “there is an antitype (non physical salvation) which now saves us – baptism (not the removal of filth of the flesh [washing with water], but the answer of a good conscience toward God) [how is that obtained? Renewing of your mind, regeneration], through (by means of or by the mechanics of) the resurrection of Jesus Christ.” Who resurrected Christ – the HS, and who regenerates the person believing – the HS – the HS does the mechanics or is the means of regeneration and resurrection.
Continuing 4: Next Issue – Jesus and the Father. Why does Jesus while on earth use the phase Matt 10:32-33 “Whosoever therefore shall confess me before men, him will I confess also before my Father which is in heaven. 33 But whosoever shall deny me before men, him will I also deny before my Father which is in heaven.” KJV - if He has no Father then Jesus lies because He is saying He does have one and His (my) Father (who is God) is in Heaven. If Jesus is God and He is on Earth, then how does God manifest His divine attributes such as omniscience (there were things Jesus did not know [day or the hour] hint hypostatic union), omnipresence (God being everywhere but now stuck in Jesus?), omnipotence (all powerful – this involves keeping the universe running), God, Himself has eternal life, so how could He die and what died? And of course we have an issue with the veracity of Jesus and or God since the statements we read disagree with modalism or modalism is wrong. If we make God or Jesus a liar then the truth is not in us.
ReplyDelete50 times Jesus refers to “my Father”. But look at this verse: John 14:12 Verily, verily, I say unto you, He that believeth on me, the works that I do shall he do also; and greater works than these shall he do; because I go unto my Father. So clearly Jesus is on earth and going to have to “go” to his Father. For a modalist it means Jesus must change modes and become his Father or another "self".
We still have to consider Hebrews as that has a major context going back into chapter 5 so bear with me. The writer talked about entering into “the rest” and at the end of chapter 5:11 he recognizes those he is writing to cannot understand what he is talking about when considering our High Priest Jesus (he describes them as dull of hearing – which is actually a phrase meaning stupid – the KJV writers were very polite). So in chapter 6 he start over with the basics and you will note that he uses the plural in baptisms, but he goes on to focus on what should be our anchor of the soul in 6:19, but on the way note verses 17&18 God does not change (immutable) His counsel and does not lie.
But who is this counsel with – if there is only one person then there is no counsel but if there are 3 then there is someone to counsel with so does God lie? There are a lot of verses linked here relating to this concept of the counsel: Acts 2:23, Eph 1:9,11, cf 1 Thess 2:13 along with the fulfillment of His seed – Luke 1:72, 73 with Gal 3:16,17. Now His counsel was a secret but His promise open and revealed declaration of His will (Titus 1:2).
Verse 18 has the reference fleeing for refuge – this should bring to remembrance the “cites of refuge” that were set up for asylum. This makes Christ our refuge from “the avenger of blood” Num 35:15 cf John 6:37. This was a physical fleeing but remember we have a spiritual problem and no connection – we are dead spiritually. So for the believer it is like 1 Tim 6:12 “to lay hold on eternal life”.
So verse 19 we have the anchor which for a ship it is invisible to those on board as it is on the sea bed and the anchor is Christ ref Isa 57:20, John 10:28, 13:1, Matt 28:18,20, Heb 7:25. Now Heb 6:20 “Whither the forerunner is for us entered, even Jesus, made an high priest for ever after the order of Melchisedec”. KJV This explains who the anchor is and Christ is the forerunner – the one who has gone every step of the way. References to His declaration of this achievement are : Psa 45:5-7, 68:18, 24-26, Heb 10:19-22, John 14;2-3, Acts 26:18, 1 Peter 1:4. All this declares is who and what the forerunner was, that he has gone on high and Jesus is our great High Priest. Realize this was like saying the Aaronic order was divinely set aside and with it all the ceremonies and related law!
Continuing 5: Now we can look at Heb 7:1-3 For this Melchisedec, king of Salem, priest of the most high God, who met Abraham returning from the slaughter of the kings, and blessed him; 2 To whom also Abraham gave a tenth part of all; first being by interpretation King of righteousness, and after that also King of Salem, which is, King of peace; 3 Without father, without mother, without descent, having neither beginning of days, nor end of life; but made like unto the Son of God; abideth a priest continually. KJV. This section starts the explanation of why the Melchisedecan priesthood was superior to the Aaronic but we must avoid what is known as “eisegesis”, that is reading into the passage what is not stated. Read first all of Psalm 110 – it is short but once again note that the Lord is speaking to my Lord – if that is not two talking in counsel what is? But read it as it has information on our verses.
ReplyDeleteOk in Heb 7:1 – not the connective use of “For” linking use back to chapter 6:20 and there is another connection all the way back to 5:10,11 picking up where he had left off there with the “many things”! More grammar – we actually have a parenthesis in these three verses and this is how it looks omitting the parenthesis “For this Melchisedec, king of Salem, priest of the most high God, abideth a priest continually”. I believe I mentioned before that the Greek manuscripts have no periods, commas, colons of semicolons so unless you are well versed in the language it can be a struggle to assemble the verses. I have done the translation of Hebrews through chapter 11 in the past and the Greek in Hebrews is significantly tougher than Paul’s. Anyway we learn in verse 1 that Mel (shortened for convenience) was a king and a priest. There are all kinds of theories who he was some really goofy so I am not going to guess since scripture does not tell us.
He does show up in Gen 14 and if you link with Psa 76:2 we see a link to Jerusalem. In our text the reference to Abraham comes from Gen 14:18-19. Only God can bless or curse but God does allow men to invoke this on occasion Gen 9:26, 27:27, 48:15, Num 6:24-26. Mel was a “type of Christ” and represented Him. Now Abraham’s tithes were a recognition of his priesthood and was a sacerdotal act given to God, received by his officer in this world compare to a church offering if you would.
The rest of verse 2 we see Mel being by interpretation King of righteousness (holiness) and after that also King of Salem, which is King of Peace,. This is the mystical significance of the proper names used in the first verse. Mel’s interpreted name is “King of Righteousness” and Salem is “King of Peace”. At this point the author is now representing Christ in His mediatorial office and work. As we move on remember, we are talking about a “priest” and not necessarily a man as this is critical to keep in mind.
Verse 3 “Without father (not Father), without mother, without pedigree, having neither beginning of days, nor end of life; nut make like unto the Son of God”. So Mel is a human as we are told from Heb 5:1 “every high priest taken from among men is ordained for men in things pertaining to God”. You must have a human nature to occupy a sacerdotal office (priestly), The Son of God could not serve as Priest until he became human (fully God and fully man – just as the Father is fully God and the HS is fully God). So Mel is declared to be a man – so now we can explain the statements that “seem” to confuse. Here one needs to understand the Aaronic priesthood and for want of a better word their “pedigree”. Ezra 2:61&62 shows how that pedigree was preserved. But Mel was by an order where natural descent was not regarded – he was free from the Levitical restrictions in Num 3:10 and following. He was an accurate type of Christ who did not belong to the tribe of Levi (like Christ).
Continuing 6: Also there is no record anywhere of Mel’s parentage. “…beginning of days nor end of life” – Jewish priests began their “days” as priests at the age of 25 when they could wait on the brethren Num8:24 cf 1 Chron 23:27&28. At age 30 they began their regular priestly duties Num 4:3. At age of 50 their “priestly” life ended Num 8:25. But no restriction was placed on Mel, so this too was a type of Christ. “Made like unto the Son of God”, the Greek here would be better translated “but assimilated to the Son of God”. Mel is assimilated to the Son of God. So here is the key – in the order of TIME Christ subsisted before Mel. But in the order of NATURE Mel was a priest before Christ was.
ReplyDeleteMel’s priesthood furnished the copy and a copy in advance is a type: First as a priest of the most High God; second as being a royal priest possessing personal majesty and authority; third as being a king of righteousness; fourth as king of peace; fifth as the one who blessed Abraham; sixth as the one who received the grateful gifts of Gods people represented by Abraham; seventh as not owing his priesthood to natural genealogy; eighth as abiding a priest beyond the bounds of the Levitical limitations. Now here is why we need to remember we are talking about a priest – verse 3 is not talking about natural life but that of his priestly life – it did not cease at 50 – Mel continued to be a priest to the very end of his earthly existence – he had no successor “continually” – a perpetual priesthood. All this being said to show that the passage is NOT about Jesus not having a mother of Father but that there is no lineage of Mel. Jesus quite clearly had a human mother.
Eph 2:8&9 – I have both taught and translated the book of Ephesians and so I will review your section and comments in light of the text. Eph chapter 1:2 What follows is from both God our Father AND from the Lord Jesus Christ (two individual personages). If it were just a matter of titles only the single or singular title of God would be needed. Verse 3 indicates the God and Father of our Lord Jesus Christ (guess He does have a Father). Note that all these terms are ones you would use with individual persons. Now everything from this verse 3 all the way to the end of the chapter is a massive list of what God the Father and God the Son have done and none of it is done by us. When I teach this I make the students outline all the verses listing the details.
Just note some specifics as in verse 5 predestination unto adoption and it is according to the good pleasure of His will (notice it is not His desire) – NOT ours – man has no will or desire for God – go back to John 6 for God to “draw” or drag the person to Christ. Verse 11 – there is the predestination again and note the counsel of His will – Paul, this is a group discussion and decision all 3 m3mbers of the Trinity agree. Verse 13 is a compact Gospel presentation and you end up sealed by the HS (did you read my post on the Order of Salvation? You need to.). Verse 17 the gift of the spirit of wisdom and revelation IN the knowledge of him (we will see this same sentence construction type again but let me say that the key word here is IN – without the knowledge you will not get wisdom and revelation). Verse 18 is the result – that the eyes of your understanding are enlightened (you are no longer blind because of the act of God not man. Verse 19 cements His power doing the work of Salvation. Note verse 20 whoever the “his” is from the previous verse it was them who raised Christ and set Him at HIS own right hand in the heavenlies. Clearly there are TWO persons in view or the language is meaningless and you must have your God switching masks or roles every millisecond. Whoever this other God is He makes Jesus what you see in verses 21-23.
Continuing 7: Now to chapter 2. In 2:1 we have a problem – your text probably has italics there for “hath he quickened” – which means the KJV translators inserted this but it was not in the Greek text. So the verse says “and you who were dead in trespasses and sins:” Please recall your statement and reliance on 2:1 for “new birth” as it is not there and verse 1 flows into verse 2 quite nicely now as Paul now talks about how those who were dead walked. Essentially sons of Satan. Verse 3 Paul notes we all were sons of Satan following our own desires and were children of wrath (vessels made for wrath, destruction as in Romans 9). Now verse 4 has the best news “But”, this is a “but” of contrast so you can say it “but in contrast”. God showed His mercy and love to us (based on what? Go back to 1:5 & 11). Verse 6 now clearly links to the corrected verse 1 and now we are quickened together with Christ and we have the parenthetical statement “by grace you are saved”.
ReplyDeleteWe have to ask now by what means this quickening happens – what are the mechanics? If I need to get food from the store, there is a process I go though and this statement we just read says our trip to the store was a success but not HOW WE DID IT. So we want to know now is what are the components of this being quickened together that resulted in something with grace and salvation. Remember we are not talking about being rescued from a flood or from Pharaoh’s army of from loss of eyesight – we are talking about eternity with God or torment in the lake of fire.
So in verse 6 he picks up on the other side of the parenthesis and says “He has made us” Clearly this is not by our choice – we did not choose this if is all God’s work, this is an event caused by God. Made us sit together in the heavenlies in Christ Jesus.
Verse 7 has a result clause “”with the result that in the ages to come He might show the exceeding riches of His grace in His kindness toward us through Christ Jesus”. This is a mechanics verse – the word in Greek for “through” “dia” is best translated as by means of or by the mechanics of Christ Jesus. So all the riches of grace, all the kindness and yeas go back – all the sitting together, and the quickening drive us back to the parenthesis and the word “saved”.
Finally verse 8 – this is the verse you said there was no ‘gift”, let’s look. “For by grace you are saved through faith; and that not of your selves it is the GIFT of God”. Some grammar basics with Greek – Koine Greek has no punctuation, all capital letters, no parenthesis marks but you can tell by the writing where a parenthetical statement is being made. Also when the writer gets excited and is really trying to make a point he will drop out the verb. Note the italicized “it is” is not in the text but I will explain that because in English we need the verb due to how our language works so it is a legitimate insertion unlike the one in verse 1 (that was wrong and the KJV folks knew it).
OK translation time - ”For” is a result clause again – “For with the result that” then “by grace” this is a feminine singular dative noun – we will come back to that later and there is a matching definite article making it “by the grace”. Then we have the second person plural of “to be” which since it is plural a southern person would say “ya’ll are” recognizing the plural of the group of Ephesians he is talking to but we will translate it as “You all are”. Then the word “saved” which is a perfect passive masculine plural of our word “sozo” and here we are clearly talking about eternal salvation. The perfect tense is a completed action with the results that continue to the present time, the passive voice means the action was received and not done by the subjects and not participated in the action (did not share in it) – someone else did the action. Notice this is a masculine plural matching the “you all” but recall grace was feminine so now we have mixed genders but we will resolve this based on Greek grammar.
Continuing 8: Next is the word “through” and that is our word “dia” again which is a genitive and gives us the mechanics on how grace and salvation are done so this translates “by the means of” or “by the mechanics of” then “faith” “pistis” which is a feminine singular genitive matching the “dia”. Let’s recap – we have a feminine singular for grace, a feminine singular for faith – meaning there is only on faith and one grace that can do this plural salvation. Immediately it should be apparent that all 3 terms are not something we possess by human birth but let’s continue.
ReplyDelete“and that not of your selves” starts with “and” which is kai and then has “that” which is “touto” a neuter singular pronoun better translated as “this”, then comes the negative “ouk” meaning “not” and then the phrase “of your selves” which is “ek humon”. The “ek” means “out of” or “out from” and “humon” is a second person plural genitive of source pronoun again meaning “you all as a source”.
We conclude the verse with “the gift of God” “Theou to doron”. Theou is another genitive of source and we have the neuter singular for gift. Now having the neuter here causes a summation of the preceding items that were feminine “grace” and the masculine “saved” and the famine “faith” as all being under the category of “gift”.
So putting it all together we have “For with the result that by the grace you all have been saved in the past by someone other than you by (or through) the mechanism of singular faith and this (faith, salvation and grace) is not out from yourselves (a) gift of God”. So all three faith, salvation and grace IS the singular gift of God but grace and salvation only come by means of God’s gift of faith. It is not any “measure of faith” because all learning systems are based on human faith to begin with – and human learning does not have any weight in God’s system so human faith is only good for assuring eternal damnation as all that man thinks says and does is sin without the HS regenerating.
Please review the Order of Salvation chart verses and advise where you might disagree and why.
Lastly my contention is still that man can do nothing unless God acts first and causes that man to be regenerated and causes him to believe. Therefore, I would also argue that the mode of salvation has always been faith in either the work of the coming Messiah Old Testament or in the work of the Messiah that came in the New Testament.
Hi there, I am back again.
ReplyDeleteYou said, 'First you have clarified finally that you do believe there is a God that is Jesus and a God that is the Father and a God that is the HS.'
Oh NO, I did not say that. I do NOT believe in THREE gods.
One God Jesus and another God the Father and another God the HS equals THREE gods.
I believe only in ONE God and that is JESUS Christ our Lord and ONLY God (Jude 1:25 and 1:4).
I believe that JESUS is the Father, just as He has said in John 10:30 and in many other passages.
I believe that JESUS is the Holy Spirit, just as it said in 2 Cor. 3:17.
You see, the fullness of God is in JESUS.
Trinitarians and modalists do not believe that, and that is why I am NOT a modalist and not a trinitarian.
Modalists believe that God came in three different modes, at different times as the Father and then as the Son and also as the Holy Spirit.
But I believe that God who is Holy Spirit (John 4:24) clothed Himself in flesh and caused Himself to be born into His own creation. In other words "God appeared in a body"(1 Tim 3:16) which is Jesus Christ our Lord.
Can you see, ALWAYS one God Jesus Christ alone.
The Lord Jesus said in Isaiah 43:10 'before Me was NO God formed, nor will there be one after Me', and in Isaiah 45:22 Jesus said, 'Look at Me and be saved, I am God and there is NO OTHER!'
You said, 'You have not commented on the issue of the hypostatic union of Jesus. So the questions you would need to address are: when did God become Jesus the man, was He always Jesus, how much of Jesus was God and how much was man, who died on the cross? Where was God when Jesus died and who was in the tomb? When Jesus died on the cross He gave up (dismissed) His spirit – was that the human spirit or the HS? '
I think that it is important to understand that God is Spirit (without a body of flesh) (John 4:24), and that Spirit is the Lord Jesus (2 Cor 3:17), but in the beginning He was without the Name 'Jesus'.
In the Old Testament God's Name was NOT given till He caused Himself to be born into His own creation (Mat. 1:22 -25) and that was the first time when all creation knew God's ONE and ONLY Name, JESUS.
Here we can see that God clothed Himself with flesh. JESUS.
Or, that God who is the SPIRIT was clothed in human flesh, became a man just like one of us, JESUS Christ of Nazareth.
Because it is impossible to nail a Spirit to a cross, therefore God had to cause Himself to be born into His own creation in order to be nailed to the cross for our sins, JESUS.
Yes, it was God who was crucified and died on the cross for our sins, JESUS Christ.
Death means separation NOT annihilation.
God could only die when He was clothed in flesh, JESUS.
The death of Jesus Christ (God) was when His flesh was separated from His Spirit, just the same as when we die, our body will be separated from our spirit, which is called DEATH.
Can you see, always ONE person or ONE God Jesus Christ our Lord and only God (Jude 1:25).
Continued on next comment.
You said, "Recall John 10:30– your quote was – "I and the Father are one" – but that is not what the text really says – it says "I and the Father WE are one."
ReplyDeleteNo it doesn't say 'WE are one'. It cannot say that, because TWO can NEVER be ONE, two are always two, and God is ONE, therefore Jesus said , 'I and the Father are ONE', meaning that Jesus IS the Father.
If Jesus would NOT be the Father, then Jesus and the Father would be TWO.
You have quoted 1 John 4:9-11. Well, I see that as metaphoric language.
God did NOT have a son, but rather God IS the Son.
Just the same as God (JESUS) did not have a Father, but rather, He IS the Father.
For us is but ONE God, the Father (1 Cor. 8:6).
It doesn't say that there is another God called the Son and a third God called the HS.
If the Lord Jesus is 'the Lord God', then He does not and cannot have a Father just as the Scriptures said in (Hebr. 7:3).
Melchizedeck was a type of the Lord Jesus Christ, because ever man without exception HAS a mother and a father, a beginning and an end, but NOT the Lord Jesus Christ. Therefore Melchizadeck was NOT a man, but a type of Jesus Christ.
There is only ONE in all history who has no mother or father, or genealogy, or beginning of days or end of life and that is God the Lord Jesus Christ.
So, every time the Lord Jesus spoke about His Father, He was speaking metaphorical, which is figuratively (John 16:25). The reason He doesn't have a Father is, because He is the Father just as He has said.
You see, if God counsels with three persons, then there would be three gods.
If one god can do nothing by himself unless another god tells him, then there would be two gods.
If one god would be greater than the other god, then there would be two gods (John 14:28).
Well, I don't think that I need to say more about that.
For English speaking people the Lord gave us an English Bible and for Greek speaking people He gave them a Greek Bible, but it means exactly the same. It cannot mean in one Bible this, and in another Bible the opposite. The Lord is not the author of confusion.
Concerning salvation,.
As I have said, that we believe similar, perhaps with a slight difference in perspective :-) but I surely appreciate the good work and time you have put into explaining your view in those important matters.
I will be taking time to slowly work through all those Scriptural reverences you have given me.
Meanwhile lot's of brotherly love Paul.
Paul, Thanks for responding and your comments and kindness. I have been swamped this week so have not had a chance to sit down and review in detail your notes and only have a couple of free hours today. One other thing, I live in the Orlando area so also have some distraction today due to a local attack. But I will take a couple of hours to make a few quick observations.
ReplyDeleteModalism is a branch of Unitarianism and your branch is saying that God is only Jesus. Most say they are only the Father. That the use of plurals and multiple designations of God also being known as the Father and being known as the HS. Let me be clear – Trinitarians are not Tritheists – we do NOT believe is 3 Gods – we are monotheists – we believe in the category of one God that has made himself known as 3 persons. I am sure you have seen the trinitarian triangle as a depiction of “God” – I do not believe that is a “good” representation as it shows God in the center. As I have described before we are of the category human but You and I and my wife are all individual persons in that category. The category of God is “beingness”, while God’s personhood is seen as Father, Son and HS and is limited to only 3. I view God as a circle with that circle have 3 equal dotted line divisions meeting at the center (like a pie) one God with 3 equal persons.
The modalist has God as a circle who then manifests Himself as either the Son or the HS as needed. Your version seems to be (putting it into a sort of formula from your statements) that God is the Son and the Son is the Father and I guess the Son (or the Father) is the HS – that is the definition of modalism (shifting masks/names to meet the need of the moment). If Jesus is being baptized – who is talking? Who is descending? And how do all 3 modes appear at the same time? A ventriloquist God?
Realize all this God as only one person eventually messes up because of the Greek grammar and the use of personal pronouns which your theological position forces you to ignore.
So I will explain in the next post - this may take a few again.
Now you strongly disagreed with John 10:30 in the correct use of “We are One” (Christ is claiming he and the Father are one God but two persons) – I would strongly urge you to go to the Greek and see the error in translation yourself, but not only there did the KJV translators err but they did it earlier in John 9:4 as it should have been translated with “We” at the start of the verse (referring to Jesus and the disciples as we and us instead of I). Also just FYI note that there are two people referred to “Him” and “Me” – that is also a “we” – so who is the Him if the Me is Jesus? That is a personal pronoun and must be another person – just like in 10:30.
ReplyDeleteQuick look at your Jude passage – did you read verses 20 through 25? We have the HS that you pray in and keeping yourself in the Love of God and looking to another person the LJC for mercy - that is the Trinity. I am not sure if I mentioned, but in the Greek when the writers wanted to indicate Deity thy put an overstrike (a line) over the starting letter(s) of the word (back then they were all in caps anyway) so you knew they were talking about God so I am sure you see a capital S in verse 19 so you know that is deity as well as verse 20.
A comment on verse 25 – there are numerous variant manuscripts on this verse here are the 3 variants or the first line: “to [the] only God our Savior”; “to [the] only wise God, our Savior” or “to our only God”. The KJV & NKJV go with the middle one while all the others go with the first one. The scribal changes match Rom 16:27 and 1 Tim 1:17 and so it appears to be an addition from those sources. Ok Jude 4 – Please look up Granville-Sharp as you are attempting to use that rule in this location and the verse does not meet the requirements. The requirements are that there must be the definite article to make two things equal to the other. And again there are 3 variants in the Greek ( I hope you see how important it is to access these resources) so here they are “denying our only Master and Lord, Jesus Christ” (recall normally there is no punctuation in the Greek so that is added), “denying God, the only Master, and our Lord Jesus Christ” and “denying our Master and our Lord Jesus Christ”. The last variant has no support for it being the proper variant. The second one is poorly supported but it appears the KJV went with it as well as NKJV, RSV and NRSV. The first reading is the best. That said what is the ending telling us – it is telling us that the Master (a Title for God in Luke 2:29, Acts 4:24 and Rev 6:10) is referring back to the word “God” in the text in both accepted variants. And because it did not say “the God’ and “the Lord Jesus Christ” they are NOT the same “persons” but they are both Deity.
I would note your use of the Isaiah passages you are using eisegesis, by that I mean reading into the passage what is not there. The passage at best can relate to the coming Messiah but the speaker is God. The use of LORD is the Hebrew Yahweh and not Jesus. That is why I say you are using eisegesis.
ReplyDelete1 John 4:9-11 metaphorical? This is our propitiation the payment and removal of sins – a metaphor? If you do that then was Christ’s death on the cross a metaphor? There is no grammatical hint that John thinks this should be metaphorical. I give you passages that I have spent the time making sure the context was sound and supportable.
Your argument against “the Father” is not correct based on context in Hebrews we are talking about what it takes to be a high priest – remember Christ clearly demonstrated that He and the Father were in two different places – Jesus (God per you) on earth and the Father (per Jesus, God) in heaven. Did Jesus lie or deceive? God is all truth and He cannot lie so either Jesus lied or He told the truth. The Pharisees thought He told the truth, why don’t you believe both Him and them? So does that mean anytime Jesus spoke it was metaphorical when it came to His deity? Then how can we trust or interpret anything?
I agree the Lord is not the author of confusion but when everything becomes subject to metaphorical application rather than interpretation it does become confusion.
When it comes to manuscripts, there are lots of them for the New Testament. The Old is very fixed and has excellent history. Early on NT manuscripts were written in several languages – Greek, Aramaic, and Latin as examples. You cannot get to a German translation (thinking of Luther and his work) without the non-Germanic manuscripts. Same with getting to French for Calvin and English for Wycliffe – they all had to start with languages that were not native. But the Lord did not give us anything but early manuscripts and then people had to translate to the best of their current knowledge. We only have an English Bible because of the reformation. Remember the KJV Bible came after Wycliffe’s translation (which is 70% of the KJV) and after Tyndale’s translation and after the Geneva Bible (1560) and several others. Each building on the others work and correcting errors. If old is good and you think it perfect why not use the Geneva Bible? You will say because of the errors and I agree but also the KJV has errors so what to do? Give up – no – we need to learn to use resources that show us the errors in our texts. I have a friend who is a KJV “Onlyist” – that is no other translating is God’s translation and every time we got together he would quote a passage out of context and I would force him into the context in into the best Greek manuscripts we have and he would end up grumbling about nerds. It is not being a nerd, it is about handling the Word that God has given us in an honest manner.
I will continue to do my best to explain things and Paul, please do not take my comments in a negative way – as I do have a tendency to be open and blunt at time so forgive me as I was rushed to get this out.
Blessing, mercy, and love in Christ,
Dead Theologian
Paul, I almost completely forgot my purpose of what I wanted to post. Here is what was known as an early church creed which actually starts at verse 6: 5 Let this mind be in you, which was also in Christ Jesus:
ReplyDelete6 Who, being in the form of God, thought it not robbery to be equal with God:
7 But made himself of no reputation, and took upon him the form of a servant, and was made in the likeness of men:
8 And being found in fashion as a man, he humbled himself, and became obedient unto death, even the death of the cross.
9 Wherefore God also hath highly exalted him, and given him a name which is above every name:
10 That at the name of Jesus every knee should bow, of things in heaven, and things in earth, and things under the earth;
11 And that every tongue should confess that Jesus Christ is Lord, to the glory of God the Father. Philippians 2:5-11 (KJV)
Some key things to note is the interaction between Jesus and another person and Paul's request that Jesus mind be in us - that we should be thinking His thoughts. Also he was in the morphe' form or shape of God did not think it robbery to be equal with God - clearly we are talking two persons. But took on the likeness of men - which addresses your comment earlier. He (Jesus a person) became obedient to the death of the cross. Wherefore God (who was named as doing the resurrection was it Jesus - no it was the Spirit and the Father because Jesus was dead) exalted (raised) Him. But look at verse 11. "And that every tongue should confess that Jesus Christ is Lord, to the glory of God the Father." We clearly have Jesus as God and the Father as God. And every tongue will confess that - someday.
Here is a recent article from a series on church history and major figures. This one is on Athanasius, Arianism and Modalism.
ReplyDeletehttps://blogs.thegospelcoalition.org/ryanreeves/2016/05/09/who-was-athanasius-and-why-was-he-important/