Posted on 04/15/2013 5:06:15 PM PDT by DouglasKC
Few understand how the Trinity doctrine came to be accepted - several centuries after the Bible was completed! Yet its roots go back much farther in history.
"And you shall know the truth, and the truth shall make you free" (John 8:32).
Most people assume that everything that bears the label "Christian" must have originated with Jesus Christ and His early followers. But this is definitely not the case. All we have to do is look at the words of Jesus Christ and His apostles to see that this is clearly not true.
The historical record shows that, just as Jesus and the New Testament writers foretold, various heretical ideas and teachers rose up from within the early Church and infiltrated it from without. Christ Himself warned His followers: "Take heed that no one deceives you. For many will come in My name . . . and will deceive many" (Matthew 24:4-5).
You can read many similar warnings in other passages (such as Matthew 24:11; Acts 20:29-30; 2 Corinthians 11:13-15; 2 Timothy 4:2-4; 2 Peter 2:1-2; 1 John 2:18-19, 26; 4:1-3).
Barely two decades after Christ's death and resurrection, the apostle Paul wrote that many believers were already "turning away . . . to a different gospel" (Galatians 1:6). He wrote that he was forced to contend with "false apostles, deceitful workers" who were fraudulently "transforming themselves into apostles of Christ" (2 Corinthians 11:13). One of the major problems he had to deal with was "false brethren" (verse 26).
By late in the first century, as we see from 3 John 9-10, conditions had grown so dire that false ministers openly refused to receive representatives of the apostle John and were excommunicating true Christians from the Church!
Of this troubling period Edward Gibbon, the famed historian, wrote in his classic work The History of the Decline and Fall of the Roman Empire of a "dark cloud that hangs over the first age of the church" (1821, Vol. 2, p. 111). It wasn't long before true servants of God became a marginalized and scattered minority among those calling themselves Christian. A very different religion, now compromised with many concepts and practices rooted in ancient paganism (such mixing of religious beliefs being known as syncretism, common in the Roman Empire at the time), took hold and transformed the faith founded by Jesus Christ.
Historian Jesse Hurlbut says of this time of transformation: "We name the last generation of the first century, from 68 to 100 A.D., 'The Age of Shadows,' partly because the gloom of persecution was over the church, but more especially because of all the periods in the [church's] history, it is the one about which we know the least. We have no longer the clear light of the Book of Acts to guide us; and no author of that age has filled the blank in the history . . ."For fifty years after St. Paul's life a curtain hangs over the church, through which we strive vainly to look; and when at last it rises, about 120 A.D. with the writings of the earliest church fathers, we find a church in many aspects very different from that in the days of St. Peter and St. Paul" ( The Story of the Christian Church, 1970, p. 33).
This "very different" church would grow in power and influence, and within a few short centuries would come to dominate even the mighty Roman Empire! By the second century, faithful members of the Church, Christ's "little flock" (Luke 12:32), had largely been scattered by waves of deadly persecution. They held firmly to the biblical truth about Jesus Christ and God the Father, though they were persecuted by the Roman authorities as well as those who professed Christianity but were in reality teaching "another Jesus" and a "different gospel" (2 Corinthians 11:4; Galatians 1:6-9).
Different ideas about Christ's divinity lead to conflict
This was the setting in which the doctrine of the Trinity emerged. In those early decades after Jesus Christ's ministry, death and resurrection, and spanning the next few centuries, various ideas sprang up as to His exact nature. Was He man? Was He God? Was He God appearing as a man? Was He an illusion? Was He a mere man who became God? Was He created by God the Father, or did He exist eternally with the Father?
All of these ideas had their proponents. The unity of belief of the original Church was lost as new beliefs, many borrowed or adapted from pagan religions, replaced the teachings of Jesus and the apostles.
Let us be clear that when it comes to the intellectual and theological debates in those early centuries that led to the formulation of the Trinity, the true Church was largely absent from the scene, having been driven underground. (See the chapter "The Rise of a Counterfeit Christianity " in our free booklet The Church Jesus Built for an overview of this critical period.).
For this reason, in that stormy period we often see debates not between truth and error, but between one error and a different error— a fact seldom recognized by many modern scholars yet critical for our understanding.
A classic example of this was the dispute over the nature of Christ that led the Roman emperor Constantine the Great to convene the Council of Nicaea (in modern-day western Turkey) in A.D. 325.
Constantine, although held by many to be the first "Christian" Roman Emperor, was actually a sun-worshiper who was only baptized on his deathbed. During his reign he had his eldest son and his wife murdered. He was also vehemently anti-Semitic, referring in one of his edicts to "the detestable Jewish crowd" and "the customs of these most wicked men"—customs that were in fact rooted in the Bible and practiced by Jesus and the apostles.
As emperor in a period of great tumult within the Roman Empire, Constantine was challenged with keeping the empire unified. He recognized the value of religion in uniting his empire. This was, in fact, one of his primary motivations in accepting and sanctioning the "Christian" religion (which, by this time, had drifted far from the teachings of Jesus Christ and the apostles and was Christian in name only)
. But now Constantine faced a new challenge. Religion researcher Karen Armstrong explains in A History of God that "one of the first problems that had to be solved was the doctrine of God . . . a new danger arose from within which split Christians into bitterly warring camps" (1993, p. 106).
Debate over the nature of God at the Council of Nicaea
Constantine convened the Council of Nicaea in the year 325 as much for political reasons—for unity in the empire—as religious ones. The primary issue at that time came to be known as the Arian controversy.
"In the hope of securing for his throne the support of the growing body of Christians he had shown them considerable favor and it was to his interest to have the church vigorous and united. The Arian controversy was threatening its unity and menacing its strength. He therefore undertook to put an end to the trouble. It was suggested to him, perhaps by the Spanish bishop Hosius, who was influential at court, that if a synod were to meet representing the whole church both east and west, it might be possible to restore harmony.
"Constantine himself of course neither knew nor cared anything about the matter in dispute but he was eager to bring the controversy to a close, and Hosius' advice appealed to him as sound" (Arthur Cushman McGiffert, A History of Christian Thought, 1954, Vol. 1, p. 258).
Arius, a priest from Alexandria, Egypt, taught that Christ, because He was the Son of God, must have had a beginning and therefore was a special creation of God. Further, if Jesus was the Son, the Father of necessity must be older. Opposing the teachings of Arius was Athanasius, a deacon also from Alexandria. His view was an early form of Trinitarianism wherein the Father, Son and Holy Spirit were one but at the same time distinct from each other.
The decision as to which view the church council would accept was to a large extent arbitrary. Karen Armstrong explains in A History of God: "When the bishops gathered at Nicaea on May 20, 325, to resolve the crisis, very few would have shared Athanasius's view of Christ. Most held a position midway between Athanasius and Arius" (p. 110).
As emperor, Constantine was in the unusual position of deciding church doctrine even though he was not really a Christian. (The following year is when he had both his wife and son murdered, as previously mentioned).
Historian Henry Chadwick attests, "Constantine, like his father, worshipped the Unconquered Sun" ( The Early Church, 1993, p. 122). As to the emperor's embrace of Christianity, Chadwick admits, "His conversion should not be interpreted as an inward experience of grace . . . It was a military matter. His comprehension of Christian doctrine was never very clear" (p. 125).
Chadwick does say that Constantine's deathbed baptism itself "implies no doubt about his Christian belief," it being common for rulers to put off baptism to avoid accountability for things like torture and executing criminals (p. 127). But this justification doesn't really help the case for the emperor's conversion being genuine.
Norbert Brox, a professor of church history, confirms that Constantine was never actually a converted Christian: "Constantine did not experience any conversion; there are no signs of a change of faith in him. He never said of himself that he had turned to another god . . . At the time when he turned to Christianity, for him this was Sol Invictus (the victorious sun god)" ( A Concise History of the Early Church, 1996, p. 48).
When it came to the Nicene Council, The Encyclopaedia Britannica states: "Constantine himself presided, actively guiding the discussions, and personally proposed . . . the crucial formula expressing the relation of Christ to God in the creed issued by the council . . . Overawed by the emperor, the bishops, with two exceptions only, signed the creed, many of them much against their inclination" (1971 edition, Vol. 6, "Constantine," p. 386).
With the emperor's approval, the Council rejected the minority view of Arius and, having nothing definitive with which to replace it, approved the view of Athanasius—also a minority view. The church was left in the odd position of officially supporting, from that point forward, the decision made at Nicaea to endorse a belief held by only a minority of those attending.
The groundwork for official acceptance of the Trinity was now laid—but it took more than three centuries after Jesus Christ's death and resurrection for this unbiblical teaching to emerge!
Nicene decision didn't end the debate
The Council of Nicaea did not end the controversy. Karen Armstrong explains: "Athanasius managed to impose his theology on the delegates . . . with the emperor breathing down their necks . . .
"The show of agreement pleased Constantine, who had no understanding of the theological issues, but in fact there was no unanimity at Nicaea. After the council, the bishops went on teaching as they had before, and the Arian crisis continued for another sixty years. Arius and his followers fought back and managed to regain imperial favor. Athanasius was exiled no fewer than five times. It was very difficult to make his creed stick" (pp. 110-111).
The ongoing disagreements were at times violent and bloody. Of the aftermath of the Council of Nicaea, noted historian Will Durant writes, "Probably more Christians were slaughtered by Christians in these two years (342-3) than by all the persecutions of Christians by pagans in the history of Rome" ( The Story of Civilization, Vol. 4: The Age of Faith, 1950, p. 8). Atrociously, while claiming to be Christian many believers fought and slaughtered one another over their differing views of God!
Of the following decades, Professor Harold Brown, cited earlier, writes: "During the middle decades of this century, from 340 to 380, the history of doctrine looks more like the history of court and church intrigues and social unrest . . . The central doctrines hammered out in this period often appear to have been put through by intrigue or mob violence rather than by the common consent of Christendom led by the Holy Spirit" (p. 119).
Debate shifts to the nature of the Holy Spirit
Disagreements soon centered around another issue, the nature of the Holy Spirit. In that regard, the statement issued at the Council of Nicaea said simply, "We believe in the Holy Spirit." This "seemed to have been added to Athanasius's creed almost as an afterthought," writes Karen Armstrong. "People were confused about the Holy Spirit. Was it simply a synonym for God or was it something more?" (p. 115).
Professor Ryrie, also cited earlier,writes, "In the second half of the fourth century, three theologians from the province of Cappadocia in eastern Asia Minor [today central Turkey] gave definitive shape to the doctrine of the Trinity" (p. 65). They proposed an idea that was a step beyond Athanasius' view—that God the Father, Jesus the Son and the Holy Spirit were coequal and together in one being, yet also distinct from one another.
These men—Basil, bishop of Caesarea, his brother Gregory, bishop of Nyssa, and Gregory of Nazianzus—were all "trained in Greek philosophy" (Armstrong, p. 113), which no doubt affected their outlook and beliefs (see "Greek Philosophy's Influence on the Trinity Doctrine," beginning on page 14).
In their view, as Karen Armstrong explains, "the Trinity only made sense as a mystical or spiritual experience . . . It was not a logical or intellectual formulation but an imaginative paradigm that confounded reason. Gregory of Nazianzus made this clear when he explained that contemplation of the Three in One induced a profound and overwhelming emotion that confounded thought and intellectual clarity.
"'No sooner do I conceive of the One than I am illumined by the splendor of the Three; no sooner do I distinguish Three than I am carried back into the One. When I think of any of the Three, I think of him as the whole, and my eyes are filled, and the greater part of what I am thinking escapes me'" (p. 117). Little wonder that, as Armstrong concludes, "For many Western Christians . . . the Trinity is simply baffling" (ibid.).
Ongoing disputes lead to the Council of Constantinople
In the year 381, 44 years after Constantine's death, Emperor Theodosius the Great convened the Council of Constantinople (today Istanbul, Turkey) to resolve these disputes. Gregory of Nazianzus, recently appointed as archbishop of Constantinople, presided over the council and urged the adoption of his view of the Holy Spirit.
Historian Charles Freeman states: "Virtually nothing is known of the theological debates of the council of 381, but Gregory was certainly hoping to get some acceptance of his belief that the Spirit was consubstantial with the Father [meaning that the persons are of the same being, as substance in this context denotes individual quality].
"Whether he dealt with the matter clumsily or whether there was simply no chance of consensus, the 'Macedonians,' bishops who refused to accept the full divinity of the Holy Spirit, left the council . . . Typically, Gregory berated the bishops for preferring to have a majority rather than simply accepting 'the Divine Word' of the Trinity on his authority" ( A.D. 381: Heretics, Pagans and the Dawn of the Monotheistic State, 2008, p. 96).
Gregory soon became ill and had to withdraw from the council. Who would preside now? "So it was that one Nectarius, an elderly city senator who had been a popular prefect in the city as a result of his patronage of the games, but who was still not a baptized Christian, was selected . . . Nectarius appeared to know no theology, and he had to be initiated into the required faith before being baptized and consecrated" (Freeman, pp. 97-98).
Bizarrely, a man who up to this point wasn't a Christian was appointed to preside over a major church council tasked with determining what it would teach regarding the nature of God!
The Trinity becomes official doctrine
The teaching of the three Cappadocian theologians "made it possible for the Council of Constantinople (381) to affirm the divinity of the Holy Spirit, which up to that point had nowhere been clearly stated, not even in Scripture" ( The HarperCollins Encyclopedia of Catholicism, "God," p. 568).
The council adopted a statement that translates into English as, in part: "We believe in one God, the Father Almighty, Maker of heaven and earth, and of all things visible and invisible; and in one Lord Jesus Christ, the only-begotten Son of God, begotten of the Father before all ages . . . And we believe in the Holy Spirit, the Lord and Giver of life, who proceeds from the Father, who with the Father and the Son together is worshipped and glorified, who spoke by the prophets . . ." The statement also affirmed belief "in one holy, catholic [meaning in this context universal, whole or complete] and apostolic Church . . ."
With this declaration in 381, which would become known as the Nicene-Constantinopolitan Creed, the Trinity as generally understood today became the official belief and teaching concerning the nature of God.
Theology professor Richard Hanson observes that a result of the council's decision "was to reduce the meanings of the word 'God' from a very large selection of alternatives to one only," such that "when Western man today says 'God' he means the one, sole exclusive [Trinitarian] God and nothing else" ( Studies in Christian Antiquity, 1985,pp. 243-244).
Thus, Emperor Theodosius—who himself had been baptized only a year before convening the council—was, like Constantine nearly six decades earlier, instrumental in establishing major church doctrine. As historian Charles Freeman notes: "It is important to remember that Theodosius had no theological background of his own and that he put in place as dogma a formula containing intractable philosophical problems of which he would have been unaware. In effect, the emperor's laws had silenced the debate when it was still unresolved" (p. 103).
Other beliefs about the nature of God banned
Now that a decision had been reached, Theodosius would tolerate no dissenting views. He issued his own edict that read: "We now order that all churches are to be handed over to the bishops who profess Father, Son and Holy Spirit of a single majesty, of the same glory, of one splendor, who establish no difference by sacrilegious separation, but (who affirm) the order of the Trinity by recognizing the Persons and uniting the Godhead" (quoted by Richard Rubenstein, When Jesus Became God, 1999, p. 223).
Another edict from Theodosius went further in demanding adherence to the new teaching: "Let us believe the one deity of the Father, the Son and the Holy Spirit, in equal majesty and in a holy Trinity. We authorize the followers of this law to assume the title of Catholic Christians; but as for the others, since, in our judgement, they are foolish madmen, we decree that they shall be branded with the ignominious name of heretics, and shall not presume to give their conventicles [assemblies] the name of churches.
"They will suffer in the first place the chastisement of the divine condemnation, and the second the punishment which our authority, in accordance with the will of Heaven, shall decide to inflict" (reproduced in Documents of the Christian Church, Henry Bettenson, editor, 1967, p. 22).
Thus we see that a teaching that was foreign to Jesus Christ, never taught by the apostles and unknown to the other biblical writers, was locked into place and the true biblical revelation about the Father, the Son and the Holy Spirit was locked out. Any who disagreed were, in accordance with the edicts of the emperor and church authorities, branded heretics and dealt with accordingly. Trinity doctrine decided by trial and error.
This unusual chain of events is why theology professors Anthony and Richard Hanson would summarize the story in their book Reasonable Belief: A Survey of the Christian Faith by noting that the adoption of the Trinity doctrine came as a result of "a process of theological exploration which lasted at least three hundred years . . . In fact it was a process of trial and error (almost of hit and miss), in which the error was by no means all confined to the unorthodox . . . It would be foolish to represent the doctrine of the Holy Trinity as having been achieved by any other way" (1980, p. 172).
They then conclude: "This was a long, confused, process whereby different schools of thought in the Church worked out for themselves, and then tried to impose on others, their answer to the question, 'How divine is Jesus Christ?' . . . If ever there was a controversy decided by the method of trial and error, it was this one" (p. 175).
Anglican churchman and Oxford University lecturer K.E. Kirk revealingly writes of the adoption of the doctrine of the Trinity: "The theological and philosophical vindication of the divinity of the Spirit begins in the fourth century; we naturally turn to the writers of that period to discover what grounds they have for their belief. To our surprise, we are forced to admit that they have none . . .
"This failure of Christian theology . . . to produce logical justification of the cardinal point in its trinitarian doctrine is of the greatest possible significance. We are forced, even before turning to the question of the vindication of the doctrine by experience, to ask ourselves whether theology or philosophy has ever produced any reasons why its belief should be Trinitarian" ("The Evolution of the Doctrine of the Trinity," published in Essays on the Trinity and the Incarnation, A.E.J. Rawlinson, editor, 1928, pp. 221-222). Why believe a teaching that isn't biblical?
This, in brief, is the amazing story of how the doctrine of the Trinity came to be introduced—and how those who refused to accept it came to be branded as heretics or unbelievers.
But should we really base our view of God on a doctrine that isn't spelled out in the Bible, that wasn't formalized until three centuries after the time of Jesus Christ and the apostles, that was debated and argued for decades (not to mention for centuries since), that was imposed by religious councils presided over by novices or nonbelievers and that was "decided by the method of trial and error"?
Of course not. We should instead look to the Word of God—not to ideas of men—to see how our Creator reveals Himself!
Have I stated y'alls views correctly or are you NOT in agreement about the Trinity. It appears some of us are really addressing the two of you separately, but have you two actually been talking past each other all this time, as well?
It’s bedtime for me. Maybe we’ll touch base again tomorrow. Good night.
We have a heart and mind...two...add that to your three and that's 5... :-)
We can do this all day...but the simple fact of the matter is that two is much more prevalent than three in man, God's highest creation.
Are you going to ignore the other examples regarding space, time and matter?
Can I? :-)
Space Height Width Depth
There are many more dimensions to reality than these 3...this can be proven mathematically.
Matter Solid Liquid Gas
There are at least 4, and some believe 5, states of matter. Look it up...it's true!
Why boatbums...God bless you! That's about as accurate a statement i've heard about my beliefs...delivered in a respectful, mostly accurate way...seriously.
I wouldn't have used the word "only" to describe the holy spirit because I believe it's God's presence on earth. So when we're talking about God's spirit we're talking about God interacting with us on level we can understand.
I do believe the father and son are co-equal, but with different roles and responsibilities but at the same time always united in love, purpose, direction...united in any way you can think of.
I'm not sure about count-your-change. "Deny" the trinity though is a loaded term. I affirm the model of the Godhead as shown in scripture and as believed by the first Christians. Saying "Deny the trinity" leads some to believe that I deny the divinity of Christ (God forbid) or that I deny there is a holy spirit which of course I don't. I do though appreciate your adding the "as the historical Christian faith has defined it" because that's accurate.
take care...
Historical Christian faith has been struggling to make the definition of the trinity fit the Scriptures since it was worked out in the fourth cen.
But instead of following these creeds I think the Srciptures reveal an almighty Father with His created Son and an impersonal force, the holy spirit.
Paul says there are many gods and lords with the caveat that to Christians there was only God and only One Lord. (1 Cor. 8:4-6)
Like the term “god” the term “lord” had broad application and not always in a religious setting. Generally used to address a superior, a child might call his father lord as Jesus related in parable in Matt. 21:30.
Or “lord” could be used of an owner and thus is properly applied to both Jehovah and Christ.
It certainly isn't quibbling to seek to understand how these terms are and were used as we seek to gain a deeper knowledge of Scriptures, for instance the Logos being called the “only begotten god”. (John 1:18)
“Either Jesus is God in human flesh - as Scripture overwhelmingly states - or he is merely a man with no divine nature at all. And, if he is merely a man, then he cannot be THE Savior of all mankind.”
A false choice, Jesus was never “mere”, he had all the power of heaven to call upon, was called the “last Adam” being perfect and destined to sit on a hevenly throne at the right hand of God Himself. Not “mere” by any means.
So is it your assertion that the first group of teachers after the Apostles, who where taught by the Apostles and died martyrs deaths for their beliefs, who were warned against false teachers* and were taught that they would be cursed teaching a different gospel**, invented the Trinity out of whole cloth once all of the Apostles died? And that now, only now, your teachers have learned the truth?
* 2 Peter 2:1 "But false prophets also arose among the people, just as there will also be false teachers among you, who will secretly introduce destructive heresies, even denying the Master who bought them, bringing swift destruction upon themselves."
1 John 4:1 "Beloved, do not believe every spirit, but test the spirits to see whether they are from God, because many false prophets have gone out into the world."
Galatians 2:4,16,19-21 "But it was because of the false brethren secretly brought in, who had sneaked in to spy out our liberty which we have in Christ Jesus, in order to bring us into bondage. ... nevertheless knowing that a man is not justified by the works of the Law but through faith in Christ Jesus, even we have believed in Christ Jesus, so that we may be justified by faith in Christ and not by the works of the Law; since by the works of the Law no flesh will be justified. ... For through the Law I died to the Law, so that I might live to God. I have been crucified with Christ; and it is no longer I who live, but Christ lives in me; and the life which I now live in the flesh I live by faith in the Son of God, who loved me and gave Himself up for me. I do not nullify the grace of God, for if righteousness comes through the Law, then Christ died needlessly."
** Galatians 1:8 "But though we, or an angel from heaven, preach any other gospel unto you than that which we have preached unto you, let him be accursed."
“........invented the Trinity out of whole cloth once all of the Apostles died? And that now, only now, your teachers have learned the truth?”
That’s not at all what I asserted or said and since my exact words are readily available I have to wonder why you wou would say it is.
Because your exact words are written in such a way as to leave me with some doubt. So that the there is no doubt, I will as a simple Yes or No question:
Did the early church fathers in the first and second century AD, in the time before Justin Martyr and Origen, stray from the teaching of the Apostles by teaching the Trinity?
And when I say Trinity, I mean that they taught the the Father, Son, and the Holy Spirit were part of the triune Godhead.
Around the Mediterranean in pre-christian times triads of gods were common and a part of Egyptian, Etruscan, etc., religions and the converts weren't always asked to give up their pagan beliefs. But no problem according to John Henry Newman in his famous essay on doctrine,
“....the rulers of the Church from early times were prepared, should the occasion arise, to adopt, to imitate, or sanction the existing rites and customs of the populace, as well as the philosophy of the educated class.”
Note well that last sentence.
As Paul noted, some of the future “kings” wanted to begin ruling right immediately, the inroads of false teachings making inroads even then.
His writing is a little hard to follow but I don't think anyone would say he didn't believe in a trinity.
Which the heart and mind are part of the soul and spirit of man - unless you mean the heart as an organ, then it is part of the body. ;o)
We can do this all day...but the simple fact of the matter is that two is much more prevalent than three in man, God's highest creation.
I'm talking about the simple, observable facts - as would be understood by regular humans - and how creation reflects the nature of its creator. States of matter in classical physics are solid, liquid, and gas. Plasma, the collection of charged gaseous particles containing nearly equal numbers of negative and positive ions, is sometimes called the fourth state of matter (but only recently discovered and NOT known before to the normal person). Though we normally have two eyes, ears, hands, legs, etc., God is not bound to those characteristics since He is spirit - and unseeable except when He chooses to reveal Himself.
You may be able to "do this all day", but it is missing the point that there certainly ARE observable trinities in creation, as the examples I gave demonstrated (space, time and matter). Of course, no example is infinite in its scope, as our Creator is, but I disagree that Scripture is not clear concerning the triune nature of God. The Father is God, the Son is God, the Holy Spirit is God, but there is still ONLY one God. Nobody, I don't think, is expected to be able to grasp this with finite, mortal minds. Just accepting them by faith - because God says we must - is all that is necessary. You can ignore those verses that speak about the Holy Spirit in terms that differentiate Him from the Father and the Son, but you would not be correct to say they aren't there in Scripture.
I think you have made it clear that you do not believe in the traditional understanding - as best as humans CAN understand it - of the triune nature of Almighty God termed the Trinity. Setting aside that disagreement for now, what is your view regarding the role of faith in Jesus Christ to save you? In other words, what is your "gospel"? In the UCG economy, what must a man do to be saved?
I don't agree. But as I just asked another, what is your gospel? What must a man do to be saved, according to you?
Here's what Paul said in I Cor. 8:4 "Therefore, as to the eating of food offered to idols, we know that “an idol has no real existence,” and that “there is no God but one.”
That doesn't sound to me like Paul was saying there ARE many gods but only to Christians there is but one. Nope, he is stating the truth that there is NO true, real god BUT the Almighty God. He continued in verses 5 & 6, "For although there may be so-called gods in heaven or on earth—as indeed there are many “gods” and many “lords”— But to us there is but one God, the Father, of whom are all things, and we in him; and one Lord Jesus Christ, by whom are all things, and we by him."
It is inescapable that Scripture is rife with references to Jesus Christ as GOD - not "a" god, not "a mighty" god, but God incarnate. Why else would the adjective "incarnate" be used if Jesus was a man, with or without "all the power of heaven to call upon"? It was translated as "God, His own Son having sent in the likeness of sinful flesh" (Romans 8:3) and "God with us" (Matt. 1:23), the incarnation was in a human nature without any of its corruptions. Why would that even be included in Scripture if Jesus was a created being who had this one assignment?
In those three verses, Paul does indeed say, there are many gods and lords with the caveat that to Christians there was only God and only One Lord. Good! we are in agreement on that.
However, Romans 8:3 says God sent His Son in the likeness of flesh not that God was sent. Matthew 1:23 speaks of the meaning of the name Emmanuel. It doesn’t call Jesus God anymore than the person having the name Adonijah is being called God or Lord or Jah.
Most Hebrew names did a meaning behind them, Elijah, is a good example. Others were prophetic like Abram-Abraham, others like Moses told something about the person but Emmanuel isn't calling Jesus God.
“Why would that even be included in Scripture if Jesus was a created being who had this one assignment?”
Your premise is in error. Neither verse calls God “incarnate” and Jesus stated through out the Gospels what his assignment was on earth and would be in heaven.
No, we are NOT in agreement on that! Did you miss the part where Paul says, "we know that “an idol has no real existence,” and that “there is no God but one.” (I Cor. 8:4)? There may be people out there who believe in many gods, but that doesn't mean they exist and that was exactly what Paul was saying there. An idol represents a false god - one that does NOT exist because there is ONLY one God - the Almighty, the self-existent one, the I AM.
I am fully aware that many Hebrew names have the "el" as part of the name and ELOHIM was the name for the Almighty God. Such as:
There he built an altar, and he called the place El Bethel, because it was there that God revealed himself to him when he was fleeing from his brother. (Gen. 35:7)
And there he built an altar and named it El-Elohe-Israel (Gen. 33:20).
It is very often found in proper names, as Bethel, Daniel, Elijah, etc. Eloi, like Eli, means, My God. From Smith's Bible Dictionary:
The etymology is uncertain, but it is generally agreed that the primary idea is that of strength, power of effect , and that it properly describes God in that character in which he is exhibited to all men in his works, as the creator, sustainer and supreme governor of the world.
Jehovah denotes specifically the one true God, whose people the Jews were, and who made them the guardians of his truth. The name is never applied to a false god, nor to any other being except one, the ANGEL-JEHOVAH who is thereby marked as one with God, and who appears again in the New Covenant as "God manifested in the flesh." Thus much is clear; but all else is beset with difficulties. At a time too early to be traced, the Jews abstained from pronouncing the name, for fear of its irreverent use. The custom is said to have been founded on a strained interpretation of (Leviticus 24:16) and the phrase there used, "THE NAME" (Shema), is substituted by the rabbis for the unutterable word. In reading the Scriptures they substituted for it the word ADONAI (Lord), from the translation of which by Kurios in the LXX., followed by the Vulgate, which uses Dominus , we have the LORD of our version. The substitution of the word Lord is most unhappy, for it in no way represents the meaning of the sacred name. The key to the meaning of the name is unquestionably given in God's revelation of himself to Moses by the phrase "I AM THAT I AM," (Exodus 3:14; 6:3) We must connect the name Jehovah with the Hebrew substantive verb to be , with the inference that it expresses the essential, eternal, unchangeable being of Jehovah. But more, it is not the expression only, or chiefly, of an absolute truth: it is a practical revelation of God, in his essential, unchangeable relation to this chosen people, the basis of his covenant.
From another dictionary, The American Tract Society Bible Dictionary:
The Bible assumes and asserts the existence of God, "In the beginning God created the heavens and the earth;" and is itself the most illustrious proof of his existence, as well as our chief instructor as to his nature and will. It puts a voice into the mute lips of creation; and not only reveals God in his works, but illustrates his ways in providence, displays the glories of his character, his law, and his grace, and brings man into true and saving communion with him. It reveals him to us as a Spirit, the only being from everlasting and to everlasting by nature, underived, infinite, perfect, and unchangeable in power, wisdom, omniscience, omnipresence, justice, holiness, truth, goodness, and mercy. He is but one God, and yet exists in three persons, the Father, the Son, and the Holy Spirit; and this distinction of the Three in One is, like his other attributes, from everlasting. He is the source, owner, and ruler of all beings, foreknows and predetermines all events, and is the eternal judge and arbiter of the destiny of all. True religion has its foundation in the right knowledge of God, and consists in supremely loving and faithfully obeying him.
“Why would that even be included in Scripture if Jesus was a created being who had this one assignment?”
Your premise is in error. Neither verse calls God “incarnate” and Jesus stated through out the Gospels what his assignment was on earth and would be in heaven.
My "premise" was that the announcement to Mary by the Angel Gabriel was, "And the angel answered and said unto her, The Holy Ghost shall come upon thee, and the power of the Highest shall overshadow thee: therefore also that holy thing which shall be born of thee shall be called the Son of God." (Luke 1:35).
In Matthew 1:18-23, "Now the birth of Jesus Christ took place in this way. When his mother Mary had been betrothed to Joseph, before they came together she was found to be with child from the Holy Spirit. And her husband Joseph, being a just man and unwilling to put her to shame, resolved to divorce her quietly. But as he considered these things, behold, an angel of the Lord appeared to him in a dream, saying, “Joseph, son of David, do not fear to take Mary as your wife, for that which is conceived in her is from the Holy Spirit. She will bear a son, and you shall call his name Jesus, for he will save his people from their sins.” All this took place to fulfill what the Lord had spoken by the prophet:
It is a fulfillment of the prophecy in Isaiah 7:14. God, Himself would give a sign that by a miraculous birth, virgin bearing a child - with no human biological father - and his name will mean God with us and God who saves us.
I believe that “believing on Christ” for salvation proves His deity. If He was a created or finite being, to teach eternal salvation by believing on Him is blasphemy. Because only God can bring eternal life by belief in Himself - remember that verse in Isaiah 43 where Jehovah says besides Him there is NO Savior. To experience new life by believing proves that Jesus was God manifest in the flesh.
What is your belief about how someone can be saved?
“What is your belief about how someone can be saved?”
Since your last post raised some questions could follow up on those a bit before moving on? Thanks.
this has been a very interesting thread, one in a series of articles recently posted by united church of god member questioning the truths of various historical Christian doctrines ( the Trinity, the 7th day Sabbath, etc )
while i of course agree with those who have defended the doctrine of the Trinity, i disagree with the way the doctrine has been defended.
How can we be 100% sure there is One God in three Persons? or that Jesus Christ is fully God and fully man? or that we aren’t to keep the 7th day Sabbath?
the only way we can be 100% of any doctrine is to follow the one institution that Jesus gave His authority to in Matthew 28:18-20:
All authority in heaven and on earth has been given to me. Go therefore and make disciples of all nations, baptizing them in the name of the Father and of the Son and of the Holy Spirit, TEACHING them to observe all that i have commanded you; and lo, I am with you always, to the close of the age.
Jesus Christ established a universal Church, the pillar of truth, and sent the Holy Spirit to lead and guide it into all truth.
this universal Church has been here for almost 2,000 years, making disciples of all nations, baptizing them and TEACHING them.
you see, the universal Church is not a man made body like the Rotary Club, but a Divine institution, established by God and protected by God. Jesus Christ bound Satan at the cross, therefore Satan can not frustrate the spreading of the Gospel and Satan does not have the power to overcome the Church. the Christian God is able to keep and protect the Church, even for 2,000 years.
we have the great advantage to look back on 2,000 years of history and see what has transpired compared to what the Scriptures tell us will happen.
how many Gods are there? Lords? Faiths? Shepards? Flocks? Baptisms? the answer to all is ONE.
Can we trace this universal Church throughout history since 33ad? was Jesus Christ correct when He said the gates of hell would not prevail against His Church?
this universal Church ( Greek and Latin ) has received authority from Jesus Christ Himself to TEACH, we have the obligation to listen and learn.
were there no universal Church, no pillar of truth on earth, then it would make sense to search the Scriptures to argue doctrine. luckily for us, God’s will provided for us to have 100% assurance of what the truth is and it is found in the Body of Christ, the Church.
so is the united church of God a tool of the devil and one of the false prophets that Jesus told us would arise? OF COURSE THEY ARE!! That they don’t believe in the Holy Spirit is no suprise, you must have the Holy Spirit to understand spiritual matters. The Holy Spirit will not lead men to believe one doctrine in 1995, in opposition to what Christians have believed since 33ad.
but i am more concerned about those that accept the universal Church NT, accept the universal Church’s doctrine of the Trinity, but they themselves reject the One, Holy Universal and Apostolic Church!
for example, one poster in this thread appealed to the universal Church Fathers to defend the Trinity, yet this poster rejects the doctrine of baptismal regeneration, which all of the Church Fathers taught and believed.
how can one believe these Church Fathers were Christian if they did not understand baptism and regeneration?
don’t these people realize that their narrative of the Church going apostate in the 2nd and 3rd century is unBiblical and directly enables groups like the Mormons, JW’s and united church of God to fool people?
i have read others who reject the universal Church, but have a high opinion of St Augustine since he believed in predestination. yet these same people would be horrified if they heard St Augustine celebrate Mass and would reject the Eucharist if offered to them by him with the words all priests say “ The Body of Christ”.
search the NT, you will see truly there is only One Lord, One Faith, One Baptism and One Church.
i will conclude with quoting Jesus in John 17:20-23:
I do not pray for these only, but also for those who believe in me through their word, that they may all be one; even as thou, Father, art in me, and I in thee, that they may also be in us, so that the world may believe that thou hast sent me. The glory which thou has given me i have given to them, that they may be one even as we are one, i in them and thou in me , that they may become perfectly one, so that the world may know that thou has sent me and hast loved them even as thou hast loved me”
so the world will may believe......
so the world will know.......
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.