Jesus and Godstuff
A comment from my last post reminded me of some thoughts that I had after the fact that I didn't touch on concerning Orthodoxy. Namely that of who Jesus is and what the Trinity is, and what my views are on them. I am not a teacher so in plain words here goes.
I do not believe that our modern explanation of the Trinity really does it justice since it is such a complex subject...but I suppose for the sake of simplicity I would put myself in the Trinitarian camp. I believe that there is only 1 God and that he has various expressions that are both separate and unified with himself. I will not get into whether or not I believe that they are all equal in authority or not because I simply do not think that there is sufficient proof from Scripture to difinitively say so. There are people from both sides of the argument who I feel do a very good job in representing their views and I respect the thought behind each of them. For the sake of this post though I will just state the angle that I see things from.
The Bible speaks of the Father, Son, and Spirit. They all co-exist in some fashion and seemingly interact with each other in a mystical way, yet each separately according to their own function.
I see the Father as the Architect, The Son as the Builder, and the Spirit as the mode of transport by which they each transact. And yet I see the Son and the Spirit as things that come from the Father and are both subject to Him. This is probably just another way of stating what is currently accepted as the orthodox view of the Trinity, though I'm sure that there could be arguments over semantics.
Who is the Son, Jesus? Is he God, or just the Son of God? By my method of induction and deduction based on the Scriptures, I believe that in some way he is God. I did, however hear a very good argument from someone on the side of Jesus only being the Son of God and not co-equal with the Father. Even though I have sided on claiming him to be God, I believe that the majority texts in Scripture, when put in their context, rather than being used as proof texts, are ambiguous on the issue because I don't believe that topic was deemed necessary at the time for apologetic attention. [The issue was not put into "official" declaration by the church as an orthodox belief until the 300's A.D.] But I know that there is disagreement on that issue. That is why I do not quarrel over it with Jehova's Witnesses or Mormons. What I do quarrel with them over is their incessant need to redirect matters back over to other insignifigant issues such as what God's real name is, or whether Jesus was crucified on a cross or a Roman torture stick. Or the number of people who will actually be in the New Jerusalem and how many will be in the outer heavens. Those are the matters that bother me since they detract from the teachings of Christ as to what it means to be his disciple. But like them, I too believe that Jesus rose from the dead after his crucifixion.
I do not believe that salvation comes as a result of someone praying the "Sinner's Prayer" or "Accepting Jesus as their Lord and Saviour" or "Asking Jesus to forgive you of your sins." I believe that these are concepts that are foreign to the Bible and are modern day inventions by man to try and make the road to salvation easier than it is.
In the Old Testament, God started out requiring the shedding of blood from animals as annual atonement for sin. Then as time goes on he says that he no longer delights in the blood of bulls and goats because the hearts of those offering sacrifices to him were corrupt. He said rather that he delighted in a broken heart, a contrite spirit and repentance over sacrifices. So I see that over time the mode of satisfying God's requirement was ammended by himself until he would forever justify men by the blood of his son. But that substitutionary atonement was applied automatically when repentance came.
I believe that salvation is an act of God that cannot be attained, it must be obtained by faith. However, I also believe that the Scriptures seem to imply that faith alone is not sufficient to save. Faith, if genuine, will be followed by works that are a response to God's salvation. However, in light of Christ's teaching of continual adherence to following God [taking care of the sick, visiting those in prison, tending to orphans and widows, feeding the hungry and clothing the naked] that if one chooses to abandon those practices in pursuit of a self-centered lifestyle, then there is no guarantee of their salvation...but that is not up to man's external ability to judge. That decision rests only in God's hands.
I also do not believe that salvation is dependant on one believing specific things about Christ. Jesus did not rebuke the blind man who said, "I don't know if he is a sinner or a prophet. All I know is that I was blind and now I see." I also do not believe that he rebuked Thomas for either good or bad when Thomas responded to his wounds by saying "My Lord and My God" because I believe that he [Thomas] was speaking to the Father when he said that. And since Jesus' mission was to represent the Father and bring the hearts of his people back to him, then he was pleased by Thomas' response. Jesus had varied responses for various people depending on their circumstances so it is not a fair biblical assumption that he expected a specific belief from whoever approched him.
So while I personally am persuaded that he is God, I do not believe that it is a necessary requirement for salvation.
I do not believe that our modern explanation of the Trinity really does it justice since it is such a complex subject...but I suppose for the sake of simplicity I would put myself in the Trinitarian camp. I believe that there is only 1 God and that he has various expressions that are both separate and unified with himself. I will not get into whether or not I believe that they are all equal in authority or not because I simply do not think that there is sufficient proof from Scripture to difinitively say so. There are people from both sides of the argument who I feel do a very good job in representing their views and I respect the thought behind each of them. For the sake of this post though I will just state the angle that I see things from.
The Bible speaks of the Father, Son, and Spirit. They all co-exist in some fashion and seemingly interact with each other in a mystical way, yet each separately according to their own function.
I see the Father as the Architect, The Son as the Builder, and the Spirit as the mode of transport by which they each transact. And yet I see the Son and the Spirit as things that come from the Father and are both subject to Him. This is probably just another way of stating what is currently accepted as the orthodox view of the Trinity, though I'm sure that there could be arguments over semantics.
Who is the Son, Jesus? Is he God, or just the Son of God? By my method of induction and deduction based on the Scriptures, I believe that in some way he is God. I did, however hear a very good argument from someone on the side of Jesus only being the Son of God and not co-equal with the Father. Even though I have sided on claiming him to be God, I believe that the majority texts in Scripture, when put in their context, rather than being used as proof texts, are ambiguous on the issue because I don't believe that topic was deemed necessary at the time for apologetic attention. [The issue was not put into "official" declaration by the church as an orthodox belief until the 300's A.D.] But I know that there is disagreement on that issue. That is why I do not quarrel over it with Jehova's Witnesses or Mormons. What I do quarrel with them over is their incessant need to redirect matters back over to other insignifigant issues such as what God's real name is, or whether Jesus was crucified on a cross or a Roman torture stick. Or the number of people who will actually be in the New Jerusalem and how many will be in the outer heavens. Those are the matters that bother me since they detract from the teachings of Christ as to what it means to be his disciple. But like them, I too believe that Jesus rose from the dead after his crucifixion.
I do not believe that salvation comes as a result of someone praying the "Sinner's Prayer" or "Accepting Jesus as their Lord and Saviour" or "Asking Jesus to forgive you of your sins." I believe that these are concepts that are foreign to the Bible and are modern day inventions by man to try and make the road to salvation easier than it is.
In the Old Testament, God started out requiring the shedding of blood from animals as annual atonement for sin. Then as time goes on he says that he no longer delights in the blood of bulls and goats because the hearts of those offering sacrifices to him were corrupt. He said rather that he delighted in a broken heart, a contrite spirit and repentance over sacrifices. So I see that over time the mode of satisfying God's requirement was ammended by himself until he would forever justify men by the blood of his son. But that substitutionary atonement was applied automatically when repentance came.
I believe that salvation is an act of God that cannot be attained, it must be obtained by faith. However, I also believe that the Scriptures seem to imply that faith alone is not sufficient to save. Faith, if genuine, will be followed by works that are a response to God's salvation. However, in light of Christ's teaching of continual adherence to following God [taking care of the sick, visiting those in prison, tending to orphans and widows, feeding the hungry and clothing the naked] that if one chooses to abandon those practices in pursuit of a self-centered lifestyle, then there is no guarantee of their salvation...but that is not up to man's external ability to judge. That decision rests only in God's hands.
I also do not believe that salvation is dependant on one believing specific things about Christ. Jesus did not rebuke the blind man who said, "I don't know if he is a sinner or a prophet. All I know is that I was blind and now I see." I also do not believe that he rebuked Thomas for either good or bad when Thomas responded to his wounds by saying "My Lord and My God" because I believe that he [Thomas] was speaking to the Father when he said that. And since Jesus' mission was to represent the Father and bring the hearts of his people back to him, then he was pleased by Thomas' response. Jesus had varied responses for various people depending on their circumstances so it is not a fair biblical assumption that he expected a specific belief from whoever approched him.
So while I personally am persuaded that he is God, I do not believe that it is a necessary requirement for salvation.
posted by The Raging Paradoxidation at
00:56
6 Comments:
Hey there Chris,
I just realized that the entries were deleted and i was confused until I just figured it out
This would probably be my last post about the Manata/Barker debate
I do have to say that Paul Manata had a point that any beef you have against Manata, Gene Cook, Presuppers, etc isnt the main issue or that apologetics is the primary problem
I have to be frank with you Chris, I'm worried about your orthodoxy
I say this knowing that it is very possible that my motive might be put into question
Too many words, too little time...
But, I am concerned about one thing you said and whether it is Biblical:
" see the Father as the Architect, The Son as the Builder, and the Spirit as the mode of transport by which they each transact."
I don't think that is a biblical illustration is it?
YOu have a relaxing Lord's Day in this heat!
Oh, can I ask Chris, what kind of CHurch do you attend?
Jimmy, I do not take your posts as personal attacks or anything of that nature so I also hope that my responses are not received by you to be in kind.
I am sure that there are many out there who would question my orthodoxy. I guess I am fine with that. I don't keep my guard up too high against accusations, nor do I try and throw many stones at others who I might not believe to be on par with all of my beliefs.
As far as my analogy goes of the Father, Son, and Spirit in their roles and relationship, I will be the first to admit that my example/explanation is poor at best and misleading at worst. I do not think of myself as a theologian and therefore have to admit that there are matters that are too high and lofty for me. But I will say that, once again, I don't believe that any of our modern explanations of the existence of the Trinity do the concept complete justice...but nor can I offer any better alternative.
I am not a Unitarian, Oneness Pentacostal, or Modalist. I just know that we have to do the best we can with the fact that the Bible speaks of all 3 persons, yet never explains or uses the term "Trinity."
Chris,
I believe that salvation is an act of God that cannot be attained, it must be obtained by faith. However, I also believe that the Scriptures seem to imply that faith alone is not sufficient to save. Faith, if genuine, will be followed by works that are a response to God's salvation. However, in light of Christ's teaching of continual adherence to following God [taking care of the sick, visiting those in prison, tending to orphans and...
>
>
If we tie Faith to lists or describe works then we will start to do the old.. “how many is good.. well, then if 5 is good.. 10 is better..therefore, I do 20 and am better than you!”
We can not define Faith.. we must feel it..
Faith, of course, is indescribable.. But we finites try…so I will say this:
Faith, will be followed by an attitude that requires love, that in turn will bring hope that Faith will be more. Knowing full well, that self-centered ego will bust the cycle.
Faith, Hope, Love…paradoxically, never ending. Having no beginning. Unable to touch, see, hear. I find comfort in facts..yet, facts elude me when speaking of these three issues
Questioning, which of the trinity is the strongest is akin to the question: “if God is infinite.. can He make a rock He can not move.”
Any way, more on this later.. or send me a email.. we will talk there.. or here..
How is it going….
steve
Hi Topher,
I'm a Topher too, but I go by Mac.
Steve directed me to your page and I am grateful he did.
I very fine meditation. My own view would simply add encouragement. I feel the Trinity is incomprehensible...as Buechner says God's explaining God's own nature would be like us trying to tell a little-necked clam what it means to be human. (it's almost as incomprehensible as trying to spell Buechner..I still have to grab a book)
I see relationhip between the three in one as love. This love is expansive and wants to create and include others. Those others are us.
Why? I ahve no idea...except the above...love. Creation. We are called children of God and you have children and so do I. Are they necessary? No. But imagine life weithout them...
Anyway. Thanks to Steve for pointing me here. I look forward to reading more.
Mac
All we can go on to perceive an idea of who Jesus was is what we find in "Scriptures" which depends on which texts one believes to be authentic.
Christ asked on the cross "Father, why have you forsaken me?". Maybe one could use that as that Jesus submitted being the weaker one. Or, if Jesus was both God AND Man, the man quality was surfaced.
Cooper....this gets back tot eh simple question..."what takes more power...being God or being able to divest Oneself of that power to become human, incubating in a womb and experiencing all we do?"
Post a Comment
Subscribe to Post Comments [Atom]
<< Home