IN WHAT SENSE IS JESUS GOD?
Nowhere in the Bible do I see, "Thou shalt believe in the Trinity" as a prerequisite to becoming a follower of Jesus the Messiah. I see "Believe on the Lord Jesus Christ and you will be saved" (Act 16:6). I see " ... confess with your mouth ... believe in your heart ..." (Rom 10:9,10). I see "Repent and be baptized ... for the remission of sins ... " (Act 2:38). But nothing requiring belief in the Trinity.
However, I do see this verse: "Pay close attention to yourself and to your teaching; CONTINUE in these things, for in doing this you will SAVE both yourself and your hearers" (1Tim 4:16). And also: "There are some things in them [Paul's teachings] hard to understand, which the ignorant and unstable TWIST to their own DESTRUCTION, as they do the other scriptures" (2Pet 3:16).
By these verses and others we learn that should someone RESIST sound biblical doctrine once he/she has decided to follow Jesus, it still has a bearing on his/her eternal salvation. Or perhaps exposes that he/she wasn't saved in the first place.
Nevertheless, my experience is that most people have problems with the Trinity...or better, the Tri-unity of God...because it is presented to them in a seemingly irrational way: "Jesus is God," when they know that in the Bible he is called the SON of God. "The Spirit is God," when they know from Scripture that the Spirit was SENT by God.
People resist this formulation instinctively because it appears illogical.
But it is neither unreasonable nor completely beyond normal human ability to understand the basics about the Tri-unity of God. And it is important to explain this foundational doctrine to people in ways that demonstrate that it is not illogical. Let me illustrate:
Q. Can a thing be both A and, at the same time or in the same sense, B? Can a square ever be a circle -- at the same time that it is a square? Can a car be both completely blue AND completely orange at the same time or in the same sense? Can a person be absolutely right on an issue AND at the same time absolutely wrong on the same issue?
Can Jesus be God's son AND at the same time or in the same sense be God?
A. NO!!!!! And most people intuitively know this. It's only logical.
Q. Is God logical?
A. YES!!!! Logic is merely a reflection of how God Himself thinks. And...we humans were made in His image.
"In the beginning was the WORD (Gk. LOGOS-- from which, by the way, we get the word LOGIC) and the WORD (LOGOS) was with GOD and the WORD (LOGOS) was GOD" (Joh 1:1).
Even a person who argues that God is not logical, nor logically perceived (... and many a Christian trying to defend the Trinity says this) has to use logic to try and prove his/her point that logic is not needed to experience or understand God. Logic is like the air we breathe; we can deny that we need air, but it takes air to vocalize that denial or even to live in order to make that denial some other way. So it is with logic. We ultimately can't escape it. It is woven by God into the fabric of reality because it reflects what God is like.
God is logical.
In the case of most objections to the Trinity, people are just being logical. They're reflecting God's image. And so were the pre-Nicene Council Church writers (those from c. 100 A.D. to 325 A.D.) who formulated from Scripture the doctrines of Jesus Christ’s divinity and of the Tri-unity of God.
So what did they say? The Church Fathers understood the Bible to be teaching that the Son of God is not God the Father, the Father is not the Holy Spirit, the Spirit is not the Son, etc. That makes sense, doesn't it? I mean, if Jesus were the Father, then who was he praying to when he said, "Father forgive them, for they do not know what they do" (Luk 23:34)?
Himself ?!?!
The Church writers also saw the Bible teaching that nevertheless the Father is God, the Son is God, and the Holy Spirit is God, all worthy of the Divine Name YHWH/the LORD (Isa 48:12-16; Mat 28:19; Joh 8:58, 59; 2Cor 3:17, 18).
"But wait a minute," you may be saying, "I thought the Bible taught there is only one God." And you would, of course, be right (Deu 6:4; Mar 12:29; Jam 2:19). Were the Church writers therefore being … illogical?
Let me show you the earliest allusion to the Tri-unity of God in the Bible:
"In the beginning (1) GOD created the heavens and the earth. The earth was without form, and void; and darkness was on the face of the deep. And (2) the SPIRIT of God was hovering over the face of the waters. Then God (3) SAID ... " (Gen 1:1-3).
The first two are easy to identify: (1) GOD (presumably the Father) and (2) the [Holy] SPIRIT. But what/who is this (3) SAID? Answer: The WORD of God (Joh 1:1 -- notice the similarity between John's wording at the beginning of his Gospel and Gen 1:1; he did that on purpose). Let's just focus on the Son (also called the WORD) of God; we'll talk about his relationship to the Father, but leave out trying to explain the Spirit at present; that’s for another study. If we get Jesus’ divinity down, the Spirit's relationship to the Father and the Son will be easier to digest.
Now our question is: How can God be THREE and at the same time ONE? That sounds illogical (and is) if you think that the Church's teaching is that God is THREE in the same sense that He is ONE. But look back to Gen 1:3.
"Then God SAID ... "
So the Word of God has a SOURCE. God. It (He) originated in the mind of God and issued forth when God spoke, just like your words originate in your mind and issue forth when you speak. Now think with me. Did God (the Father) have a source? No, He always existed (Deu 33:27; 1Tim 1:17). Did the Word (the Son) of God have a source? Without a doubt! Yes!!! Then does that mean there was a time when the Word of God did not exist? Only IF there was a time when God (the Source) did not think thoughts or speak words.
In other words "NO!”
The Word of God is eternally existent, but He is not SELF-existent. Rather He is in a contingent (dependent) relationship to the Father (Joh 1:1; Joh 14:28; 1Cor 11:3). You with me? The Son of God exists eternally, but only because He has His origin in the makeup of God. He has issued forth (emanated) from the Father ETERNALLY. The Son of God was not created, but eternally existed/exists as an extension of the Father's essence. A generation. Not a creation.
Even though the Word existed/exists eternally with God, He is not God the Father. He is nonetheless divine because He is NOT part of the creation.
"All things were made through Him..." [i.e. the Word. Remember: "Then God SAID ... " -- Gen. 1:3] ... "and without Him nothing was made that was made" (Joh 1:3; also Col 1:16, 17).
The Son is (so to speak) a sub-division of God, himself worthy of worship (Heb 1:6; Rev 5:13). However, the Word was made flesh (Joh 1:14) to point us to the Father. The Father was NOT made flesh. To look at Jesus back then was to see exactly what God the Father was/is like in the sense of a perfect representation, a reflection (Joh 14:8, 9; 2Cor 4:4; Col 1:15; Heb 1:3).
But, Jesus Christ is not an end in himself.
He is our way to God (Joh 14:6; Eph 2:18; Heb 7:25). It is God the Father who is the ultimate source and goal of all things (Rom 11:36)…including (in a certain sense) Jesus Christ himself (Joh 16:28; 1Cor 15:28).
So let's review:
1. It sounds illogical to flatly say that Jesus is God (even though in a very real way he is) because most people hear, "The Son = the Father". And that's what many in the Church sort of believe. And it's wrong.
2. Jesus Christ, though not created, nevertheless has his origin in God. That's why he's called the Son. And the Word. God, on the other hand, has His origin in no one. He is self-existent. That's why He is called the Father...why He is the Speaker, not the Spoken, i.e. Word. The Son/Word came/comes forth from the Father/Speaker.
3. Therefore it is NOT at all illogical to believe that Jesus is God IF we are clear that we do not mean that he is God in the same exact sense as we say the Father is God. The Son is God because he has always existed with the Father and has his origin in a unique way in the One True God (Joh 1:18). But the two (Jesus and the Father) are not the same person. The Word (Son) is a sub-division of God, emanates from Him, is not part of the creation, and is therefore divine. In that sense we can say that Jesus is God.
This formulation of the evidence, rightly classified as monotheism, is the historic pre-Athanasian Christian position.
Comment
-
Comment by Carolyn on March 5, 2010 at 7:36am -
Michael, just a note to say that the discussion is enjoyable..
Got a question for you. Where are you in the experience of a believer introducing the kingdom of God?
In a similar way that Jesus gave authority to his disciples, who went out from him to towns around, to do the works of heaven, heal the sick, cleanse lepers, set spiritual and physical captives free, do these works accompany the gospel you are preaching so that the Lord confirms the word?
If not, why do you think its not?
If so, how does that affect what people hear you say? Grace... Carolyn
-
Comment by michael on March 5, 2010 at 2:04am -
Hi Carolyn et al,
You wrote:
You must get a headache from all that work trying to separate Jesus from the Spirit of God from the Father.
Since the work was done for me in Scripture, it doesn't bother my head at all! : )
And please note: Echoing in that acheless head of mine at all times during these discussions with you and Connie et al are the wise words of my Israeli mentor Yosef Shulam. Once we were in the Galilee and had stopped our study tour for the day to relax at a KIBBUTZ and bed down for the night. While others swam in a hotspring, I took advantage of a golden opportunity to pick "Joe's" mind about this and that. A group soon gathered. Jews like a good debate...even if one of the competitors is a Gentile like me. Somehow the topic turned to clarifying God's unity and diversity. I took a Trinitarian stance. Him a less Gentile position. As the debate went on it became clear to me that Joe's rabbinically trained Jewish mindset was arriving at a position somewhat like yours, close to (but maybe not quite) Modalism. As you must know, Jews are VERY reluctant to divide God's essence, if only conceptually. When our PILPUL had reached a climax, signalling that it was time for "closing arguments, he smiled at me, raised a finger to the sky, and said, "Michael, if you've got a pie, you may theoretically or actually divide it into three, ten, even a hundred pieces! But remember this: It's still just ONE pie!!!" : )
I could only say, "Amen!"
You know, it is possible to work with him without a clear delineation of who is what is where is how.
It sure is! Who's got all that down perfectly anyhow?!?! Nevertheless, "knowledge is pleasant to [the] soul" (Pro 2:10). And if something about our God can be clarified, maybe it should be clarified...? : )
Be careful that a Jewish mindset that rebels at the concept of God in us does not hinder from receiving all that God has prepared
Don't blame it on the Jewish mindset. In this case I side with the pre-Nicene formulators of the biblical evidence over my Jewish mentor and where his Jewish mindset took him. Ante-Nicenes did their homework well and I can only reiterate what they have written. It is evidence, not rebellion, that brings me to my current position. I am not set here unmovably. It's just that there hasn't yet been enough counterevidence to bump me from my present perch. "So, here stand I..." : )
Shabbat Shalom from Manila,
--Michael
-
Comment by Carolyn on March 4, 2010 at 10:03pm
-
Michael, you make me smile. You must get a headache from all that work trying to separate Jesus from the Spirit of God from the Father. You know, it is possible to work with him without a clear delineation of who is what is where is how.
The writing and the words that Jesus used in John 10: 37If I do not the works of my Father, believe me not.
38But 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. 39Therefore they sought again to take him: but he escaped out of their hand,
Here he makes it clear that the Father is in him in the context that it is the Father actually doing the works. the works of God are not ethereal, just performed in the air, but are works born of his words. Physical placement is not necessary to speculate upon. The simple fact that Jesus hears the word of God, and from his own spirit man does the works of God, made him blasphemous enought to gain the ire of the Jews.
Be careful that a Jewish mindset that rebels at the concept of God in us does not hinder from receiving all that God has prepared. Peace brother. Carolyn
-
Comment by michael on March 4, 2010 at 9:03pm
-
My point was, Connie, that you used an LDS link to make your point about that beautiful hymn. And that is against the stated purposes of simplechurch.com. Please don't post another Mormon link here again, or quote Mormon materials. Thank you...
Shalom from Manila,
--Michael
-
Comment by Connie on March 4, 2010 at 7:59pm - I Know that My Redeemer Lives is a famous old Christian Hymn. Didn't you recognize it? And I thought it was in direct response to your question. Didn't you?
-
Comment by Jim London on March 4, 2010 at 6:04pm - Michael, I appreciate your effort (in your most recent post to "Carolyn et al") to sustain as careful a dilineation as you can, of the oneness and diversity of God. Father, Son and Spirit is (are?!) a thrilling mystery. Just this revelation, alone, (i.e. God is Father, Son and Spirit) takes our breath away! There is no one like Him!
-
Comment by michael on March 4, 2010 at 5:57pm
-
Hi Connie,
You wrote:
Can you listen to the words, (even though it is found on a mormon link) and not worship God?
The words are wonderful; the music beautiful! But you had every opportunity to post a link to that famous inspiring Christian hymn more in line with the stated purposes of simplechurch/com. Yet you did not. Persisting in the rebellion. It's like witchcraft, Connie. Therefore, I am going to delete your post and all subsequent posts from you with inappropriate material such as quotes from Mormon works and links to Mormon sites.
Shalom from Manila,
--Michael
-
Comment by michael on March 4, 2010 at 5:37pm
-
Hi Carolyn et al,
You wrote:
While Jesus is the way to the Father, the concept that is expressed in the NT is that the Father is in Him and that we meet the Father in Him not just thru him (gateway concept).
Under the influence of Clay Trumball [ http://www.amazon.com/Blood-Covenant-Clay-Trumbull/dp/0892280298 ] and E.W. Kenyon [ http://www.amazon.com/Blood-Covenant-E-W-Kenyon/dp/1577700155 ], plus others, I have come to view statements such as Jesus being in the Father and the Father being in the Son, and believers being in both Father and Son, in terms of covenant. Not [primarily] in terms of location. I could be wrong, but my attempt has been to understand such statements first from the worldview/s is their original hearers/readers. And they all knew about the mingling of bloods in ritual covenant, so that one person's blood/life was "in" the other person, and visa-versa.
...by his Spirit in the inner man;
17That Christ may dwell in your hearts...
My current understanding of the above is that the Spirit actually resides locatively inside me...in my body, soul, and spirit. I am his temple. However, Jesus only resides in me by means of the Spirit. I am not Jesus' temple...at least not in the same sense that I am the Spirit's temple. Christ himself resides as a resurrected and glorified human being [albeit Deity] in heaven. Not inside my body somewhere, and certainly not in my literal heart. As I've written extensively on another blog piece, and its ensuing discussion [ http://www.simplechurch.com/profiles/blogs/internal-versus-externalwhat ], and with ample biblical support, "in...heart" is an idiom. Idioms by their nature lose meaning when one tries to literalize them [ http://www.thefreedictionary.com/idiom ]. If a person is not a cultural/linguistic insider (and none of us are with regards to the culture/s and language/s of the biblical authors), then he/she has to infer an idiom's meaning from a range of its uses in various contexts. Just as a quick drill, did Paul actually and literally have the Philippian believers in his heart (Phi 1:7)? What about the Corinthians?...were they literally in the hearts of Paul and Timothy (2Cor 3:2; 7:3; Cf. 1:1)? Whole personal theologies become built upon the unwitting literalization of idioms in the Bible and then it becomes so difficult to challenge a person's understanding of a passage or concept by using hard evidence because that person is convinced despite the evidence that God told him/her this or that...
That means that all our intellectual assessment must be subjected to the gnosko (sp?) of the Love of God found only in His Son. There is a demand here for being in the Son in order to know God the Father by experience.
I can accept that as written...with the qualifier that there are stages and stand-in proxys in the process. The Spirit is the means by which we experience/know the Son, and then, via the Son (and the Spirit), by which we experience/know the Father. But what we have now is not what we one day will experience and know of Father, Son, and Holy Spirit. Therefore we must be careful not to somehow conceive of our experiences with God today, no matter how wonderful, as coming anywhere close to what they will be when the full restoration of all things has occurred, and God's tabernacle is once more with humans on earth (Rev 21:3).
Can the word of God be separate from God?
Theoretically, yes. Just like a human being can be conceived of as distinguished from his/her words.
Would God be dimished without having the expression of Himself in Word?
Yes, which is why I said "theoretically." God and Word are an eternal "package deal." And yet we are still capable of logically conceiving of the Speaker and the Spoken, the Father and the Son.
Is the Word of God more than an expression of God?
No doubt the Word of God is MUCH MORE than anything we can presently conceive of. And yet, we reason through the revelation because it molds our minds to be more like Christ's. There is merit in the process as well as in the final outcome, although the outcome remains outside our current grasp. Still we continue...
Is it not his very essence which proceeds forth and empowers this physical universe?
Yes. The earlier post-Apostolic Christians compared it to the Sun and its Rays. No human comparison will perfectly do, but that one is helpful to me.
Are the terms "Son" and "Word" only for our understanding?
Maybe. But I have been trained not to allow myself to speculate too far in such directions because we have what God gave us in written form. In the words God wanted us to have in written form. With those words there are underlying concepts. And, if we bump into a concept that we personally can't relate to or don't like, it is too easy to rationalize a different view by positing that there God was merely accomodating Himself to human language and concepts. No doubt there are accomodations. But I am of the persuasion that God gave us different pictures of Himself in His unity and in His diversity so that we would have, not only a way to relate to Him, but a practical roadmap, based on the Father's relationship to His Son, for all sorts of things: parent/child relationships, husband/wife relationships, the inner workings of the EKKLESIA, patterns for humsn government, etc. So I have been taught (and the Spirit bears witness in my heart) that I am not to stray too far from the biblical wordings or concepts. "Son" and "Word" will do just fine. I can't see how any human could improve upon them. : )
Shalom from Manila,
--Michael
-
Comment by Carolyn on February 26, 2010 at 6:34am
-
Comment by Carolyn 35 minutes ago Delete Comment Michael, I should have known that extra Biblical writings would have added that "Jewish" flavor to your mindset! They have a particular way of analytical thinking that is recognizable, I think. It flavors their writings even under the inspiration of the Holy Spirit. The fullness of the love of God is not seen in their writings until Paul. Then the concepts found, for example, in the 3rd chapter of Ephesians reveal the nature of God to us so much more than anything before him.
Your note in response to my query doesn't say the same thing that I am asking. While Jesus is the way to the Father, the concept that is expressed in the NT is that the Father is in Him and that we meet the Father in Him not just thru him (gateway concept).
Ephesians 3: 16That he would grant you, according to the riches of his glory, to be strengthened with might by his Spirit in the inner man;
17That Christ may dwell in your hearts by faith; that ye, being rooted and grounded in love,
18May be able to comprehend with all saints what is the breadth, and length, and depth, and height;
19And to know the love of Christ, which passeth knowledge, that ye might be filled with all the fulness of God.
1. It is the Spirit of god the Father that works in the inner man. This same Spirit in other places is refered to as the Spirit of the Son (Gal 4:6).
2. Christ is to dwell in the heart by faith. This is not just that we think about Him, but that there is an actual working by Him that is effectual in bringing the actions of the Father to manifestation. see V 20Now unto him that is able to do exceeding abundantly above all that we ask or think, according to the power that worketh in us...
3. Experiencing the Love of Christ, which is above mental knowledge, is the means by which we are filled with the fullness of God That means that all our intellectual assessment must be subjected to the gnosko (sp?) of the Love of God found only in His Son. There is a demand here for being in the Son in order to know God the Father by experience.
Notice that it is the Love of Christ which brings the fullness of God, therefore it may be that the Father is incomplete without the Son. At least to us, and in us, our knowledge of the Father cannot be complete without the Son, and therefor the distinction of the Son as separate from the Father takes on new meaning. He cannot be separated without diminishing the Father.
Can the word of God be separate from God? Would God be dimished without having the expression of Himself in Word? Is the Word of God more than an expression of God? Is it not his very essence which proceeds forth and empowers this physical universe? Are the terms "Son" and "Word" only for our understanding?
Hmmm.... Shalom.
-
Comment by michael on February 26, 2010 at 1:42am
-
A quick but related side-note:
You (Carolyn) wrote:
You have a jewish mind, and I am sure its a benefit when dealing with Judiasm.
It is. With God's help I have developed "a Jewish mind" by, in addition to the Bible, studying non-biblical Jewish texts and having them frame a worldview by which to understand and explain my faith in Israel's Messiah. I have been actively doing this since 1982. But the benefits of "a Jewish mind" extend far beyond the context of evangelism and apologetics. They extend into the process of understanding Scripture itself, since the Bible Gen-Rev was written by Israelites/Jews. Therefore I encourage all capable Christians to themselves develop "Jewish minds" through which they will be better suited to actually understand the biblical revelation.
Including in what sense Jesus is God.
Shabbat Shalom from Manila,
--Michael
2010 National House Church Conference
Get the dates in your calendar!
Our Partners
Badge
© 2010 Created by Dale Interactive.
You need to be a member of SimpleChurch to add comments!
Join SimpleChurch