Borrowing once again from C. S. Lewis in Mere Christianity —
I am trying here to prevent anyone saying the really foolish thing that people often say about Him: “I’m ready to accept Jesus as a great moral teacher, but I don’t accept his claim to be God.” That is the one thing we must not say.
A man who was merely a man and said the sort of things Jesus said would not be a great moral teacher. He would either be a lunatic–on a level with the man who says he is a poached egg–or else he would be the Devil of Hell. You must make your choice. Either this man was, and is, the Son of God; or else a madman or something worse.
You can shut Him up for a fool, you can spit at Him and kill Him as a demon, or you can fall at His feet and call Him Lord and God. But let us not come away with any patronizing nonsense about His being a great human teacher. He has not left that open to us. He did not intend to.
The usual objection to this argument is to assert that Jesus never made any such a claim. Of course, John’s Gospel records several such claims, and so the argument is made that John made this all up, reflecting the church’s post-Pentecost conclusions. It’s argued that the Synoptic Gospels far more accurately reflect Jesus’ actual words.
That’s not nearly as smart an argument as detractors would like to claim, but let’s play by their rules. What do the Synoptics teach? And to play fair, we should first note that when Jesus walked the earth, “son of God” did not necessarily mean “divine second member of the Godhead.” Rather, the phrase is taken from Psalm 2, where it refers to the king of God’s kingdom, that is, the Messiah.
When Jesus accepted Peter’s confession, “You are the Christ [Greek for Messiah], the Son of the Living God [Psalm 2 metaphor for the Messiah, with Peter’s emphatic “Living” added, likely because they were in the presence of idols],” Peter confessed Jesus as the King anointed by God to rule over God’s Kingdom. We now understand that language to say much, much more — but during Jesus’ ministry, this was about his claim to be long-promised King who would establish God’s Kingdom on earth.
Again: Don’t misunderstand. I’m NOT denying that Jesus is the second member of the Godhead and Divine, only that Messiah language does not, alone, prove the case.
So how does Jesus claim to be God?
(Mat 14:33 ESV) 33 And those in the boat worshiped him, saying, “Truly you are the Son of God.”
(Mat 28:9 ESV) 9 And behold, Jesus met them and said, “Greetings!” And they came up and took hold of his feet and worshiped him.
(Mat 28:16-17 ESV) 16 Now the eleven disciples went to Galilee, to the mountain to which Jesus had directed them. 17 And when they saw him they worshiped him, but some doubted.
Although “Son of God” does not necessarily indicate divinity (although it certainly can), accepting “worship” unquestionably does. And Jesus accepted worship, whereas any Jewish rabbi would have torn his clothes and cried “Blasphemy!” at the thought of accepting worship.
Jesus’ self-description as “son of man” throughout the Synoptics is beautifully ambiguous. “Son of man” was idiomatic for “human,” but in Daniel 7 describes the individual given rule over all things by God — the Ancient of Days. Hence, the phrase is both human and divine.
In Matthew 28:18, Jesus stakes a claim to the divine understanding of the phrase, because “all authority” creates this parallel:
(Mat 28:18-20 ESV) 18 And Jesus came and said to them, “All authority in heaven and on earth has been given to me … . 20 … And behold, I am with you always, to the end of the age.”
(Dan 7:14 ESV) 14 And to him was given dominion and glory and a kingdom, that all peoples, nations, and languages should serve him; his dominion is an everlasting dominion, which shall not pass away, and his kingdom one that shall not be destroyed.
As explained by D. A. Carson, Commentary on the OT Use of the NT,
Jesus’ closing “Great Commission” of his apostles seems to allude to Dan. 7:14. Jesus, whose favorite title for himself throughout the Gospel has been “Son of Man,” is given all authority on heaven and earth (Matt. 28:18), just as the Son of Man in Daniel’s vision received an identical universal authority.
He spoke these words immediately after receiving the apostles’ worship (Mat 28:17, quoted above). He is clearly claiming to be God.
(Mat 9:2-3 ESV) 2 And behold, some people brought to him a paralytic, lying on a bed. And when Jesus saw their faith, he said to the paralytic, “Take heart, my son; your sins are forgiven.” 3 And behold, some of the scribes said to themselves, “This man is blaspheming.”
Jesus repeatedly claimed to forgive sins, which the scribes and Pharisees immediately recognized to be a claim to be God — and so blasphemous.
And Jesus’ claim to sit on heaven’s throne is also clearly a claim to be God —
(Mat 26:64-66 ESV) 64 Jesus said to him, “You have said so. But I tell you, from now on you will see the Son of Man seated at the right hand of Power and coming on the clouds of heaven.” 65 Then the high priest tore his robes and said, “He has uttered blasphemy. What further witnesses do we need? You have now heard his blasphemy. 66 What is your judgment?” They answered, “He deserves death.”‘
Jesus’ language is explained by D. A. Carson —
“The Son of Man” and “coming on the clouds of heaven” stem from the Daniel text. In between, Jesus inserts “seated at the right hand of power” from the psalm. This “Son of Man” saying, rather than the claim that he was some kind of messiah, is what would have led the high priest to tear his garments and proclaim that Jesus had blasphemed (26:65).
Alleging messiahship was no capital offense; otherwise, the Jews could never have received a messiah! But claiming to be the exalted, heavenly Son of Man, one who was Lord and next to the Father himself in heaven, transgressed the boundaries of what most of the Jewish leaders deemed permissible for mere mortals (see Bock 1998). So the Sanhedrin condemned Jesus to die (26:66). …
What is more, Jesus will return again, this time not to be judged but to judge, and to avenge all the injustices of history and vanquish his enemies.
Commentary on the OT Use of the NT.
In short, it’s hardly surprising to find that the Synoptics are filled with claims of Jesus to be Divine — by Jesus himself — not merely a great king or general but the Messiah in a Divine sense, as promised by Daniel.
And as C. S. Lewis cautions us, therefore Jesus does not leave us with the option of considering him a great teacher or leader — merely. We must either consider him in fact God in the flesh or else either mentally ill or the greatest deceiver of all time.
I’ve always loved that quote from Lewis. Don’t be condescending towards Jesus. He’s either mad, a demon, or what he claimed to be. There are no other choices.
One might expect that all authority on Earth would be given to the man who triumphed where Adam fell. After all, Adam was given that authority in the Garden before sin. But, to be given all authority in Heaven and on Earth and under the Earth? To a mere man? Not hardly. You can’t earn the right to rule in God’s Kingdom. You can, however, possess that right, forfeit it voluntarily for a period of time, and then when your mission is accomplished, receive it back from your Father.
(Mat 28:16-17 ESV) 16 Now the eleven disciples went to Galilee, to the mountain to which Jesus had directed them. 17 And when they saw him they worshiped him, but some doubted.
proskyneō = worshiped =
1.to kiss the hand to (towards) one, in token of reverence
3.in the NT by kneeling or prostration to do homage (to one) or make obeisance, whether in order to express respect or to make supplication
1.used of homage shown to men and beings of superior rank
Mat 4:10 Then saith Jesus unto him, Get thee hence, Satan: for it is written, Thou shalt worship the Lord thy God, and him only shalt thou serve.
I have yet to see where in scripture, it is said that only God is to receive worship . Yes we are to serve God only, and I believe Jesus did just that.
Just because Jesus accepted worship from his followers, does not in any way condemn him in the eyes of God. And all Christians can work to serve Jesus, because he serves God.
Sounds like some may be worshippers of C.S.Lewis.
Just claiming it is and was simply not enough.
There were many back then that made that claim and had a great following. None are well known today. Its hard for us to imagine anyone making that claim today although some have come pretty close and destruction followed.
Putting ourselves in the two thousand year old shoes of those hearing the claim by others would sure make it harder to convince folks Jesus was the real one and we must insert that in our thinking.
Think hard about it, would you of believed Jesus in that environment and time? In one place and time thousands did, but that was still a small percentage and even there, miracles of speaking and fire descending upon them for everyone to see was there to help.
Back then, the more that was seen the less faith was needed. Today faith is all we have so its harder.
Why is it so important to declare the Son the Father?
Who cares if C S Lewis or N T Wright says so? We
can read innumerable verses in cannon and not that
state clearly who the messiah is and was and always
he is called Son of God/Son of Man. You can even say
He is equal to God but when you mistake Him to be
God aren’t you in effect saying God died?
What a disturbing and confusing idea is that to the
churchmen who never heard such a concept? Don’t
we already have enough to deal with explaining the
Father/Son/Spirit to people? I don’t know if this is a
salvation issue to you GODISJESUS people but I do
believe causing someone, even one, to stumble over
this stone has consequences.
What then, God died metaphysically? According to
quantum physics? I don’t think you can have it both
ways. One minute you say Son of God, the next you
say but really and truly he was God on earth. That is
confusing to people who all their lives worshipped the
Son that deferred to the Father. Who was Jesus praying
to at Olivet and the cross? Himself?
That’s the question a new convert could legitimately
ask. How would you answer him/her?
If all connection to the God of the universe can only be through this Jesus, then he is in the position of the greatest power between, a concept ( God or Jesus). We cannot possibly worship God directly without lessening the position that Jesus holds. In fact if we would attempt to conduct our worship to God only, we would be denying that God’s Word is authority. We would be seen by God to be just like the Jews who claimed Jesus to be blasphemous.
Larry said; ” In fact if we would attempt to conduct our worship to God only, we would be denying that God’s Word is authority. ”
Mat 6:6 But thou, when thou prayest, enter into thy closet, and when thou hast shut thy door, pray to thy Father which is in secret; and thy Father which seeth in secret shall reward thee openly.
After this manner therefore pray ye: Our Father which art in heaven, Hallowed be thy name.
Thy kingdom come. Thy will be done in earth, as it is in heaven. Give us this day our daily bread. And forgive us our debts, as we forgive our debtors.And lead us not into temptation, but deliver us from evil: For thine is the kingdom, and the power, and the glory, for ever. Amen.
Let’s look at what Jesus said about prayer to the apostles, while he was with them.
Jhn 14:13 And whatsoever ye shall ask in my name, that will I do, that the Father may be glorified in the Son.
(whatever you need, call on me and I will ask the Father for you.)
Now let’s look at what Jesus told these same apostles, when he was preparing to leave them.
Jhn 16:23 And in that day ye shall ask me nothing. Verily, verily, I say unto you, Whatsoever ye shall ask the Father in my name, he will give it you.
Jhn 16:26 At that day ye shall ask in my name: and I say not unto you, that I will pray the Father for you:
(in that day you shall call on me, and I will tell you, pray to the Father on your own behalf )
Jhn 16:27 For the Father himself loveth you, because ye have loved me, and have believed that I came out from God.
Larry, I believe Jesus said if we are true believers, Our Father loves us enough to hear us when we pray . God is Spirit so worship by necessity is only through love and prayer. No we don’t have to worship God through Jesus, We worship God with Jesus.
Jesus tells NIcodemus in John 3:13 “And no man hath ascended up to heaven, but he that came down from heaven, even the Son of man which is in heaven.” I like the commentary from Ellicot on this verse.
“To Nicodemus it must have come as an answer to the words of Agur, which had passed into a proverb to express the vanity of human effort to know God. “Who hath ascended up into heaven or descended?. . . . What is his name, and what is his son’s name, if thou canst tell?” (Proverbs 30:4). No man had so passed to heaven and returned again to earth; but there was One then speaking with him who had been in heaven with God, and could tell him its eternal truths. He had that knowledge which a man could obtain only by ascending to heaven, and He came down from heaven with it. From the human point of view He was as one who had already ascended and descended. (Comp. Note on John 1:51.) This is the evident meaning of the sentence, and the form is quite consistent with it.”
Jesus further declared himself to be the bead of life that came down from heaven. Note, not just the words he spoke, but he himself came down. John 6:38: For I came down from heaven, not to do mine own will, but the will of him who sent me.
Jesus couldn’t make it any more clear where he was from, heaven. He wasn’t a human that God chose, but the divine 2nd person of the eternal Godhead who wrapped himself not in light this time, but in humanity. And in his humanity he laid down his life. No one took it from him. That would be strange and pompous statement for a mere mortal to say, “no one can take my life from me, not even a Caesar or a Pontius Pilate”, don’t ya think?
A New York Yankee regardless of the position played is still known as a Yankee by all and calls himself a Yankee and all on the team are all part of the ONE.
Everyone would understand and accept that without argument.
Don’t know why its so hard to understand God the Father, God the Son and God the Holy Spirit all being God, even the ONE God.
We Christians sure can make something very simple very hard. No wonder the church is diminishing so fast.
Laymond,
You don’t say where you get your definition of proskyneo. According to BDAG, the most recent and most respected dictionary of NT Greek today,
As this passage shows, even an apostle considered it wrong to accept proskyneo because proskyneo is not proper for a mere man.
Word usage in the LXX and among the Greeks might be different, but among First Century Jews, no mere human could accept proskyneo.
And context matters. Matthew includes this statement to make a point, and the point is that Jesus is the “one like a son of man” described in Daniel, not a mere earthly Messiah. Per N T Wright, and many other Bible scholars, the First Century Jews did not routinely read the Daniel prophesies as Messianic. They were by-and-large anticipating an earthly king and earthly ruler (the Essenes might have been different but they were very much a minority sect).
Notice that the “one like a son of man” is given the same dominion that is given to the Ancient of Days. God and the One Like a Son of Man are paralleled, both having the same authority — and Jesus claimed this status, both by referring to himself as the “Son of Man” and by claiming all authority in Matt 26:64 and 28:19. He was not only clear but so clear that the high priest tore his robes in outrage and mourning that any mere human (as he understood things) would dare make such a claim.
If Jesus were merely claiming to be the Messiah, as messiahship was understood by the Jewish leaders, the high priest might have angrily disagreed but there would be no cause for a charge of blasphemy.
Laymond wrote,
You’ve not looked very hard.
(Exo 34:13-14 ESV) 13 You shall tear down their altars and break their pillars and cut down their Asherim 14 (for you shall worship [proskyneo] no other god, for the LORD, whose name is Jealous, is a jealous God),
(Deu 8:19 ESV) 19 And if you forget the LORD your God and go after other gods and serve them and worship [proskyneo] them, I solemnly warn you today that you shall surely perish.
(Deu 11:16-17 ESV) 16 Take care lest your heart be deceived, and you turn aside and serve other gods and worship [proskyneo] them; 17 then the anger of the LORD will be kindled against you, and he will shut up the heavens, so that there will be no rain, and the land will yield no fruit, and you will perish quickly off the good land that the LORD is giving you.
(1Ki 9:6-7 ESV) 6 But if you turn aside from following me, you or your children, and do not keep my commandments and my statutes that I have set before you, but go and serve other gods and worship [proskyneo] them, 7 then I will cut off Israel from the land that I have given them, and the house that I have consecrated for my name I will cast out of my sight, and Israel will become a proverb and a byword among all peoples.
(2Ch 7:19-20 ESV) 19 “But if you turn aside and forsake my statutes and my commandments that I have set before you, and go and serve other gods and worship [proskyneo] them, 20 then I will pluck you up from my land that I have given you, and this house that I have consecrated for my name, I will cast out of my sight, and I will make it a proverb and a byword among all peoples.
Laymond,
Do you understand the power involved in the passages that Jay is showing you? Jesus while on earth accepted worship that was equal to the worship that God demanded in those scriptures. If God had considered the worship that was given to Jesus out of order or worshiping another God other than him, he would have implemented the punishments on those who worshiped Jesus. In his (God’s) actions he verified that worshiping Jesus was also worshiping him.
Jay, I was speaking of this specific scripture, Mat 4:10 Then saith Jesus unto him, Get thee hence, Satan: for it is written, Thou shalt worship the Lord thy God, and him only shalt thou serve.
That was my reason for quoting it. As you well know I more than likely have used every quote you posted to say we are not to worship Jesus as God.
I have yet to see where in (THIS ) scripture, it is said that only God is to receive worship .
I believe we as followers of Jesus can worship at his feet without risking the wrath of his Father.
Either Jesus was not God, or if he was he didn’t know it. When he was confronted on the matter to whom did he compare himself.
Jhn 10:31 Then the Jews took up stones again to stone him.
Jhn 10:32 Jesus answered them, Many good works have I shewed you from my Father; for which of those works do ye stone me?
Jhn 10:33 The Jews answered him, saying, For a good work we stone thee not; but for blasphemy; and because that thou, being a man, makest thyself God.
Jhn 10:34 Jesus answered them, Is it not written in your law, I said, Ye are gods?
Jhn 10:35 If he called them gods, unto whom the word of God came, and the scripture cannot be broken;
Psa 82:6 I have said, Ye are gods; and all of you are children of the most High.
Jhn 10:36 Say ye of him, whom the Father hath sanctified, and sent into the world, Thou blasphemest; because I said, I am the Son of God?
Jhn 10:37 If I do not the works of my Father, believe me not.
Jhn 10:38 But if I do, though ye believe not me, believe the works: that ye may know, and believe, that the Father is in me, and I in him.
Jhn 10:39 Therefore they sought again to take him: but he escaped out of their hand,
Jesus did not claim to be the ‘elyown, or Theos, he claimed to be the ‘elohiym .
I assume many/most readers of this blog already know that the larger protestant world views the Church Of Christ to be a borderline cult. Laymond makes their case for them, but then I doubt or wonder whether he considers himself to be Protestant.. Yes, Barton W. Stone was not inclined to acknowledge the divinity of Jesus not the orthodox doctrine of the Trinity. Thomas Campbell told Stone that he (Stone) was entitled to his own opinions but to shut up about it lest the Stone Campbell movement be tainted by his heterodoxy.
Hesed,
Randall
Laymond,
When you take a message out of the context that it is in and attempt to use it to make a statement which is not even part of the discussion, you will never see clearly the intended message. The passage that you are using to promote that Jesus is making a statement to Satan, “worship the Lord thy God, and him only” is not any way explaining that the worship of Jesus is not worshiping God. Read these passages carefully, the message here is in opposition to Satan asking Jesus to worship him. There is not even a hint of describing the relationship between Jesus and God. Now think about this, of course this would never have happened but if Satan had believed that Jesus was really just a man then Satan could have worshiped Jesus, in a way that would have mocked not only Jesus as the Son of God but God also for claiming Jesus to be his Son. Jesus was not explaining that Satan could not worship him but would have to worship God, Jesus was explaining that he could not worship Satan no more than God could worship Satan. Stating that no man or Son of God or any other member of the body or household of God could worship Satan.
(Mat 4:8 KJV) Again, the devil taketh him up into an exceeding high mountain, and showeth him all the kingdoms of the world, and the glory of them; 9 And saith unto him, All these things will I give thee, if thou wilt fall down and worship me. 10 Then saith Jesus unto him, Get thee hence, Satan: for it is written, Thou shalt worship the Lord thy God, and him only shalt thou serve.
(Mat 4:8 NIV) Again, the devil took him to a very high mountain and showed him all the kingdoms of the world and their splendor. 9 “All this I will give you,” he said, “if you will bow down and worship me.” 10 Jesus said to him, “Away from me, Satan! For it is written: ‘Worship the Lord your God, and serve him only.'”
Randall, have you ever read Alexander Campbell’s thoughts on the subject ?
Larry, this is your claim of what Jesus said to Satan “worship the Lord thy God, and him only”
This is scripture’s claim of what Jesus said to Satan. “Thou shalt worship the Lord thy God, and him only shalt thou serve.” Do you see the difference?
Who is it that is out of context ? seems you cut the statement short to make it say what you wanted.
some people’s tendency to do that very thing, is why I said what I did about that particular scripture.
That might be considered taking away from God’s word .
Larry said; ” There is not even a hint of describing the relationship between Jesus and God.”
What do you think Jesus was saying here Larry? do you think Jesus told Satan to worship God?
Or do you understand Jesus to say He/Jesus would worship God and serve God only.?
If that does not describe a relationship between Jesus and “his God” I don’t know what would.
I do believe I recall where Jesus said “my God and his God are the same God” .
“Not even a hint” you are right, it was a full blown confession that he/Jesus was not God.
Satan knew Jesus was not God or he would never have made him the offer.
Have you forgotten the story of Job, where God set the rules, and Satan obeyed them.
Let’s see, Jesus didn’t feel the need(desire though temptation by Satan) to prove who he was, that he truly was the Son of God(deity). “And he said to him, (Matthew 4:6) If thou be the Son of God, cast thyself down: for it is written, He shall give his angels charge concerning thee and in their hands they shall bear thee up, lest at any time thou shall dash thy foot against a stone. Jesus said, it is written again, “Thou shalt not tempt the Lord they God.”
If Jesus is just a man, then the whole temptation is a moot point. A mere man couldn’t turn a stone into bread and no mere man(in his right mind), no matter how good and holy he is, is going to commit suicide by jumping off a high place. Satan knew Jesus to be God’s divine Son, and the whole temptation by Satan is this idea of “Can not!”- ” Can too!” It is an appeal to someone’s vanity or pride. In this case, in Jesus proving himself to be the divine only begotten Son of God.
Jesus knew though those words were written about him, he knew he could leap off the temple and be safe, but he also knew to do so would be presumptuous and prideful, you don’t tempt God by doing something reckless and prideful and expecting God to step in and save you.
Not only that, but why give a mere man(if that’s all Jesus was) all the kingdoms of the world for his worship? That’s not very proportional, men worship Satan all the time. No! If Jesus had worshiped Satan, there would have been an overthrow in the cosmic order of things, much more so, than just a godly man falling short and sinning.
I wonder if Laymond would have said like Thomas, after seeing the nail marks in Jesus’ hands, “My Lord and my “God” ? The Jews wanted a sign, so Jesus said, he would lay down his life and that he would take it back up again in 3 days, and that’s what he did. There’s your sign. I fear some would still want to make Jesus prove himself by leaping off a high place. What more could he do,than he’s already done?
Monty, I don’t disbelieve anything that Jesus says about himself, I just don’t make up things not said .
If Jesus was God he also deserves another title “The Great Pretender” .
Jhn 5:30 I can of mine own self do nothing: as I hear, I judge: and my judgment is just; because I seek not mine own will, but the will of the Father which hath sent me.
Jhn 5:31 If I bear witness of myself, my witness is not true.
Jhn 5:32 There is another that beareth witness of me; and I know that the witness which he witnesseth of me is true.
I believe Jesus said God bears witness of him. and he also said if he bears witness to himself his witness is not true. That statement alone tells me Jesus did not claim to be God.
I wish some of these people who claim I am wrong would bother to explain just how I am wrong.
I know why they don’t, they can’t.
Laymond,
When Jesus said, “Thou shalt worship the Lord thy God, and him only shalt thou serve,” he was not only denying that Satan should be worshipped, but slyly suggesting that Satan should be worshipping Jesus, and not the other way around.
The fact that it’s wrong to worship Satan is pretty obvious and hardly merits a quotation from the Torah. But Satan perfectly well knew who Jesus was — why else take the trouble to appear in physical form to tempt such a being with the entire world? Why promise Jesus a painless path to dominion unless he knew the prophecies well enough to know that Jesus was headed down a very painful road. After all, the world is little temptation to the Son of God unless the crucifixion was in mind.
If we grant Satan a bit of insight, then we see why he would think the temptation would be worth the effort. And Jesus was not merely citing law as law, but demanding that Satan bow before him.
Just so, when Jesus declared that Satan should not tempt God, he was also saying that Satan should not tempt the Son of God. The double meaning fits very well both the language, the context, and the personality of Jesus.
Finally, when Jesus declared that man shall not live by bread alone but by every word that proceeds from the mouth of God, surely he was referring to himself as the “word” of God. Jesus himself is the bread of life.
Laymond,
You’ve had more than fair opportunity to express your heterodox views on the nature of Jesus. Please desist from continuing to do so.
The scriptures plainly describe Jesus as God but distinguish him from God the Father. The Nicene Creed deals with the mystery as well as I’ve ever seen it done. And while the Trinity is a difficult doctrine, there is no room in the scriptures for Jesus being other than God.
(Heb 1:8-9 ESV) 8 But of the Son he says, “Your throne, O God, is forever and ever, the scepter of uprightness is the scepter of your kingdom. 9 You have loved righteousness and hated wickedness; therefore God, your God, has anointed you with the oil of gladness beyond your companions.”
Mat 1:23 “Behold, the virgin shall conceive and bear a son, and they shall call his name Immanuel” (which means, God with us).
Joh 1:1 In the beginning was the Word, and the Word was with God, and the Word was God.
Joh 10:30 I and the Father are one.”
Joh 20:28 Thomas answered him, “My Lord and my God!”
Tit 2:13 waiting for our blessed hope, the appearing of the glory of our great God and Savior Jesus Christ,
1Jo 5:20 And we know that the Son of God has come and has given us understanding, so that we may know him who is true; and we are in him who is true, in his Son Jesus Christ. He is the true God and eternal life.
This is continuing, forever policy and violations will be met with moderation without further warning.
Heterodox or heresy?
Laymond asked “Randall, have you ever read Alexander Campbell’s thoughts on the subject ?” Yes Laymond, I have. Alex Campbell avoided using the word “Trinity” b/c it is an extra biblical word. However, he was orthodox in his Christology and with regard to the Trinity. Have you ever read much of Alex. Campbell?
Hesed,
Randall
Yes I have Randall
The Trinitarian System.DEAR SIR,–IN one of your fireside conversations, when interrogated on your views of “the Trinity,” you gave an exposition of the first verse of the first chapter of John’s Testimony,
with which myself, and, I believe all present, were much delighted. In conversing with those present on that occasion,
I found that they, as well as myself, had forgotten some of the more prominent ideas. You will confer no ordinary favor on us all, and no doubt it will be pleasing to many of your readers, to give it in writing as nearly as possible to what you spoke on the subject. Do, then, oblige us so far as to give us the same in your next number of the Christian Baptist.
Yours, most affectionately, Kentucky, March 1, 1827. TIMOTHY.
A very limited excerpt from the Christian Baptist, May 1827)
The names Jesus, Christ, or Messiah, Only Begotten Son, Son of God, belong to the Founder of the christian religion, and to none else.
They express not a relation existing before the christian era, but relations which commenced at that time.
To understand the relation betwixt the Saviour and his Father, which existed before time, and that relation which began in time, is impossible on either of these theories.
There was no Jesus, no Messiah, no Christ, no Son of God, no Only Begotten, before the reign of Augustus Cesar.
The relation that was before the christian era,
……….. was not that of a son and a father,
……….. terms which always imply disparity;
……….. but it was that expressed by John in the sentence under consideration.
……….. ……….. The relation was that of God,
……….. ……….. and the “word of God.”
Yours truly, Alexander Campbell from the Christian Baptist, May 1827)
http://www.piney.com/HsACTrin.html
ALaymond: This is from the website you provided. In a minute I’ll give you one from John Mark Hicks.
It is a relation of the most sublime order; and no doubt the reason why the name Word is adopted by the apostle in this sentence
……….. was because of its superior ability to represent to us the divine relation existing
……….. between God and the Saviour
……….. prior to his becoming the Son of God.
By putting together the above remarks on the term word, we have a full view of what John intended to communicate.
As a word is an exact image of an idea,
……….. so is “The Word” an exact image of the invisible God.
As a word cannot exist without an idea, nor an idea without a word,
……….. so God never was without “The Word,” nor “The Word” without God;
or as a word is of equal age, or co-etaneous with its idea,
……….. so “The Word” and God are co-eternal.
And as an idea does not create its word nor a word its idea;
……….. so God did not create “The Word,” nor the “Word” God.
Such a view does the language used by John suggest. And to this do all the scriptures agree.
……….. For “The Word” was made flesh,
Because God is infinite in nature one cannot be with God without being God. This God Who manifested Himself in flesh was Christ:
Your attitude should be the same as that of Christ Jesus: Philippians 2:5
Who, being in very nature God, did not consider equality with God something to be grasped, Philippians 2:6
but made himself nothing, taking the very nature [b] of a servant, being made in human likeness. Philippians 2:7
Or: but laid aside his mighty power and glory, taking the disguise of a slave and becoming like men. Philippians 2:7LIV
and in consequence of becoming incarnate,
……….. he is styled the Son of God, the only Begotten of the Father.
As from eternity God was manifest in and by “The Word,”
……….. so now God is manifest in the flesh.
As God was always with “The Word,”
……….. so when “The Word” becomes flesh, he is Emanuel, God with us.
For unto us a child is born, unto us a son is given: and the government shall be upon his shoulder: and his name shall be called Wonderful, Counsellor, The mighty God, The everlasting Father, The Prince of Peace. Isaiah 9:6
As God was never manifest but by “The Word,”
……….. so the heavens and the earth, and all things were created by “The Word.”
And as “The Word” ever was the effulgence or representation of the invisible God, so he will ever be known and adored as “The Word of God.”
So much for the divine and eternal relation between the Saviour and God. You will easily perceive that I carry these views no farther than to explain the nature of that relation uncreated and unoriginated which the inspired language inculcates.”
“
From John Mark Hicks blog: http://johnmarkhicks.com/2013/03/18/alexander-campbell-on-trinity-and-christology/#comments
(sorry this is lengthy)
Alexander Campbell on Trinity and Christology
Nancy Koester’s The History of Christianity in the United States (Fortress, 2007) is my current supplementary text in my undergraudate Stone-Campbell Movement course at Lipscomb University. I use it to provide the American context for Stone-Campbell history.
I was surprised to read this sentence in the book (p. 61): “[Alexander Campbell] also rejected the doctrine of Trinity because he did not find it in the Bible.” She would have been more accurate if she had written that he rejected the term “Trinity,” but Campbell did not reject the theological idea of the tri-unity of the Christian God.
For example, in a series entitled “Elementary Views,” Campbell summarizes what he thinks is the heart of the Christian faith (Millennial Harbinger [July 1854] 367):
One Jehovah in three personalities, and one Mediator in three offices constitute the true faith and the true religion of the Christian Church, or the Reign of Heaven. And these are the centres [sic] of the Jewish and Christian dispensations of the doctrine of human redemption, in its typical and anti-typical manifestations. This is·the Alpha and the Omega of the Bible. On this broad, and strong, and enduring basis, the new heavens and the new earth, and all their tenantry will rest forever.
Campbell’s Protestant “orthodoxy” on Trinity and Christology is also obvious in this selection from “Millennium” (MH [December 1856] 700-701):
Our creed as christians is drawn up by a council of thirteen apostles presided over by the Lord Jesus Christ, and inspired by the Holy Spirit. It is in contrast with the Theocracy, properly set forth as the Christocracy. The central idea of the Jewish Religion is one Jehovah—absolute in all his perfections, self-existent, eternal and immutable—of whom are all things. The central idea of christianity is “one Lord Jesus the Christ; by and for whom are all things.” He is infinitely Divine and perfectly human, possessing all Divinity and all humanity in one personality. A perfect God man, “the only begotten of the father full of grace and Truth.” His sacrifice “expiated” and took out of God’s way and out man’s way “the sin of the world.” “By offering up of himself” on the cross on Mount Calvery [sic], “he made an end of all sin offerings,” introduced “an everlasting justification” or righteousness for fallen humanity; and “perfected forever all them that are sanctified through the faith” in his person, offices, and work.
The Holy Spirit is the Spirit of God in another personality, equally Divine, and equally co-operant with the Father and the word incarnate, who illuminates, sanctifies, and perfects every sinner in whose heart he becomes the Holy Guest; sometimes improperly called, in our common vernacular, “Holy Ghost.”
It is through faith in the Lord Jesus Christ that any sinner, can be pardoned, justified, sanctified, and perfected in holiness and in happiness—for his blood alone can justify God in justifying any penitent, believing sinner.
In these views, the whole Revelation of God centres [sic]. Jesus the Christ being the centre of that circle, which is itself the centre of all the spiritual systems of the universe. His blood, alone, which is his human life, on the altar of Jehovah, becomes the justifying cause of the justifying grace vouchsafed to fallen man, through the gospel of the reign of heaven.
Alexander Campbell considered himself in the mainline of Protestant “Orthodoxy” on the traditional questions of Trinity and Christology. His problems with Protestantism were significant, but these were not among them except the use of scholastic and creedal terminology as tests of communion and modes of understanding.
This is from the Academic page Of JMH’s blog: http://johnmarkhicks.com/70-2/
Trinity as Necessary Fact in Alexander Campbell’s Christian System of Facts
Especially in a day when there are those who try to make us all feel unified by proposing harmony between Christianity, Judaism and Islam, Lewis’ point is critical. It is not baptism or the Eucharist or music or any of the popular bones of contention that makes us who we are. It is the identity of Jesus Christ which is the heart of our faith. And the Bible’s claims about Jesus are blasphemy to both the Muslim and the observant Jew. Let us make no mistake, it is who Jesus is that is the immutable divider between these belief systems.
Charles,
Amen.
A God we can comprehend is an idol – a thing unworthy of adoration. Alexander Campbell, Millennial Harbinger 1833
I am a little surprised at Larry’s conception of the relationship
of Jesus/Satan. The latter knew exactly who he was and was
extremely jealous. The hosts of heaven were commanded to
worship His Son and Satan rebelled and was cast out with all
the celestials not honoring the holy Son of God.
This conversation is turning into an unholy contest of who is or
is not supreme. The Godhead is in perfect unity, not divided into
camps or cults like mankind. Human wisdom always lacks divine
credibility but God’s grace covers our measly incompetence.
deleted and now under moderation
I’ve also deleted the chain of comments that followed this one.
Really not interested in further discussion regarding whether Jesus really is part of the Triune God. Policy is not going to change.
deleted
deleted
deleted
deleted
deleted
deleted
always just love reading your Stuff, ( 🙂 ) Randall.
Blessings Bro
Rich
When someone violates site policy or my request to desist from a topic, I’m usually away from my desk during the day and a lengthy string of comments can result.
My long-standing policy has been to delete the entire string, not just the original, offending comment. It just seems unfair to delete only one side of a conversation, and it risks accusations of intellectual dishonesty when I keep readers from seeing the deleted side. I really just wish the entire topic had not be brought up yet again.
I have no quarrel with Randall or Monty — or with what they said — and intend no offense. I’ve just had my limit of arguments against the fully Triune status of Jesus, who is, I believe, God the Son. We’ve covered it over and over and over, and it’s time to talk about something else.
The reason we talked about it is because on June 11 you
began the topic” Apologetics”Jesus Claim To Be God”. The
vast majority of members of Churches of Christ do not agree
with this premise and have valid reason not to ignore it’s long
term implications.
Randall made a peculiar statement to the effect that
one could not be with God without being God. Would
this include the hosts of heaven, every one of the myriad
of the angelic band that surround the throne? Common
sense dictates a nominal deference to celestial matters.
Gen18: “And the Lord appeared to him (Abraham) by the
oaks of Mamre 13 The Lord said to Abraham 17 The Lord
said “Shall I hide from Abraham what I am about to do?”
20 Then the Lord said “Because the outcry again Sodom
and Gomorrah is great and their sin is very grave I will
go down to see whether they have done altogether
according to the outcry that has come to me. And if not
I will know.” ESV
Here the Lord God of heaven is seen and served a
meal by Abraham. Was he not with God?
Everyone please pray that Jay is released from his
agony.
Above someone wrote: Randall made a peculiar statement to the effect that
one could not be with God without being God. Would
this include the hosts of heaven, every one of the myriad
of the angelic band that surround the throne? Common
sense dictates a nominal deference to celestial matters.”
It needs to be understood that Randall (me) did NOT make that statement. Randall Copied and pasted material written by Alexander Campbell found in a link some other person had provided.
Angels are created beings. They did not exist in the beginning. The phrase regarding the Word that the Word was with God is what Alexander Campbell was most likely referring to. He may have understood the Word to have been with God in a special sense different that the sense in which the angels are with God or that we will spend eternity with God.
The Angel Of YHWH is a very unique figure in the OT. Fist it is the Angel that speaks and then the scripture said it is YHWH speaking. It is common place that Christians understand the Angel Of YHWH to be God in a human form, most logically the pre incarnate Christ.
Hesed,
Randall
I believe that there has been much good work done in helping many that do not comment (they only read the conversations displayed) to see the presented information about the position that Jesus holds. It is not very hard to see how weak some of the material presented supports a concept that is not really in a correct relationship with the concepts presented in scripture. Many times when someone’s idea has been contested with powerful support, the original poster begins to attack the presenter, because they cannot produce a countering statement. Many who comment would not have delved deep enough into some of the subjects to glean and revel the information they find until they were presented with the challenge. This brings information to the forefront that may never have been analyzed before.
Larry
I would encourage you to read up on “Sabellianism” the
non-Trinitarian belief that Heavenly Father/Resurrected
Son/HS are different ‘modes’ of one monadic “God”.
Modalism may be the preferred designation you and Jay
and others may hold. T. D. Jakes is also a modalist.
Catholics charge that modalistic monarchianism has its
origins in Greek pagan philosophy – Euclid, Aristotle, who
base their logic on the concept of energeia or metaphysics.
The Eastern Orthodox teach that God is not of a substance
comprehendible having no origin, eternal and infinite.
Oneness Pentecostalism teaches God as One Person united
with Jesus (a man) as Son of God, rejecting sequential
modalism accepting the begotten humanity of the Son but not
eternally begotten.
The term Sabellianism comes from Sabellius a third century
priest. Modalism differs from Unitarianism by accepting the
Nicean doctrine that Jesus was “fully God”.
Cyprian, c 250 wrote of them “How, when God the Father is not
known — nay, is even blasphemed–can they who among the
heretics are said to be baptized in the name of Christ only, be
judged to having obtained the remission of sins?”
Hippolytus in 225 spoke of them “Some of them assent to the
heresy of the Noetians affirming the Father Himself is the Son.”
Tertullian c 213 “Jesus commands them to baptize into the Father
Son and Holy Spirit–not unto a unipersonal God.”
It is reported that Sabellians experienced glossolalia and baptized
in the “shorter formula” because of denial of the Trinity (Blunt,Heik,
Kelsey)
I hope the preceding will sink into the minds of modernists who
gleefully adopt Modalism.
alreadybeen2wrote,
Why on earth would you make such an unsupported and obviously untrue allegation? You accuse me of heresy — based on what? Sheer conjecture. And in a public forum at that.
No, I’m not a modalist, and I don’t need the term defined.
I’m very much an orthodox Trinitarian, and accept every word of the Nicene Creed as true, not because some church council adopted it but because I believe it’s a correct interpretation of Holy Scripture.
Next time, when you’re unsure of whether someone might be a heretic, ask first. Don’t speculate. I’m pretty sure you would not want me inventing positions for you and launching accusations based on my speculations. The Golden Rule applies.
In response to alreadybeen2,
I can surely see that you have brought information to the discussion that has never been analyzed before, but none of the sources are from the true source. You appear to think that these men are the authority. I do not, and truly believe that men today have a much greater advantage than those men did to have a correct understanding of what the scriptures are conveying to men. The fact that men today could arrive to an understanding that parallels to someone in the past should be admired that those men already understood, or were given incite beyond their ordinary capabilities. Your observations make me think that you may have studied history of these men’s writings far more than you studied the scriptures, otherwise you would have directed Jay and I to the scriptures the true authority which deals with the subject at hand.
Would you be willing to place your life into one of the categorized teachings that you have presented? On judgement day just explain to Jesus that, “I believe that one ( any one of the presented ideas above was correct), would that be stating that Jesus I don’t care what your Word said, I just believed in that concept?
Larry I see I got your attention. You seem to be making an
assumption I have not and never would make. Jesus the Christ
is Lord of my life. Without him the Father may have chosen to
ignore mankind completely. Israel, God’s chosen people had
deserted him and as in Jeremiah gone after worthlessness and
became worthless.
No man knows how Son was begotten but nevertheless even in
cosmic terms he was still Son. You want me to quote various verses
saying what? That Logos was the Holy One? We all know that and
besides that you can use scripture to seemingly disagree with it’s
various authors. Without showing you mistakes in the record we use
to understand God we have discipleships to various “apostles” that
differ from each other. Not one understood the “mystery” completely
alike.
That kind of tells me it was supposed to be that way, the more we
try to jam Paul into James. John into Matthew the more discouraged
present disciples become.
John’s gospel begins with a poem that does not translate into King’s
English without crushing it. Whom do you think John was writing to?
Answer that and we can continue.
God’ blessings to you and yours
Jay, I misunderstood your position then. I thought you were
teaching the Son is the Father and vice-versa. You once told
me I couldn’t understand the subject unless I mastered quantum
physics, or words to that effect.
I will not be posting here again unless challenged with falsehoods.
alreadybeen2,
You truly have gotten my attention by the following statement!
Is the following a statement concerning disciples of the Apostles that we read about in scripture or the men that claim to be Apostles today?
“Without showing you mistakes in the record we use to understand God we have discipleships to various “apostles” that differ from each other.”
I have not found, discipleships to various “apostles”, opposing The Apostles, within scripture. Could you identify some for me? Then possibly I may be able to answer your question.
“John’s gospel begins with a poem that does not translate into King’s
English without crushing it. Whom do you think John was writing to?”
I have researched some to attempt to find a source for your concept, I can find no commentaries that even remotely hint of the first of The Book of John as being a poem. In fact all of the commentaries that consulted expressed that the message concerning God, Jesus and their actions was powerfully truth. A poem would not be considered as authority, but all referred to the message as authoritative.
I noticed that you expressed a problem translating into The King’s English. The great question that I have concerning this is why then do not other translations correct the deficiency?
Larry
Below the website for the poem as requested”
http://www.earlychristianwritings.com/loisy2/chapter7.html
alreadybeen2,
The site you link to is a book by a skeptic of Christianity. The following heresies are from his chapter 1 (http://www.earlychristianwritings.com/loisy2/chapter1.html) —
Etc.
alreadybeen2,
I’m not sure that anyone can truly understand the Trinity. However, an understanding of quantum physics is a helpful analogy because in quantum physics, something can exist both as three objects and one object at once.
I covered the illustration back in the 2008 Searching for a Third Way series. /2008/02/searching-for-the-third-way-the-trinity/
alreadybeen2,
As I began reading from the source you provided, I noticed immediately that the authors communications were totally directed to contest the messages written by whomever he supposed to be the author. This demise of the message was never countered with what the author considered as a more accurate rendering of information about the picture described in words by the author of the Book of John. Criticism of the message into oblivion, but never a guiding massage to what he considered to be the more perfect rendering. This held true as I further investigated material about many of the other Books of the Scriptures. Is it really possible that there is none of the accepted Scriptures today known as the New Testament that these men would consider accurate? The negativism with out some identification of a positive nature, actually exposes the level of trust and belief that the authors have in any source of truth. To explain my interpretation of my observation of these writers more understandable, they are non believers in God. Can you show me evidence to the contrary?
Larry
I had not read the chapter Jay referred to, only the one I
prefaced. This writer is highly critical of many NT books as
well as the OT and seems to me to be saying he doubts that
certain cannonized books reflect God’s Voice.
While I disagree that the books he mentions are totally spurious
we know the cannon contains discrepancies that give scholars
and laymen fits.
John I gives me fits.
alreadybeen2,
I believe that you have correctly understood that the writer doubts that the books contain a message from God. That seems to me to be the driving force by which he writes. In other words his intent is to prove to his readers that the scriptures are untrustworthy.
As you mention the cannon contains discrepancies, which really bother some or as you said gives them fits. To me the majority of these discrepancies are generated by the individual attempting to either read into the text his own concepts or trying to document in detail something that was given as an overview or a story leading to a conclusion,(which was to be understood by the narration). This Book was not written as a complete history of time or events as many would like it to be understood. Man has to have a condensed, summary of this history covered by scripture, because he would never live long enough to read or study a full account of history.
Larry
I did a Wiki bio of Loisy, an ex-communicated French RC priest.
Instead of attempting to reconcile scriptures and trace how the
offending parts made it into canon he rejected them out of hand.
Whether a failure of faith or arrogance of “reason” is a matter of
opinion.