Is Christian faith about an affective encounter with God, or about becoming convinced about the case for Christianity? You will immediately be crying ‘False dichotomy!’—but it is worth reflecting on the balance between these two ideas in contemporary expressions of faith. There was a time when the tradition of rational enquiry was most influential, but the impact of the Charismatic Movement has decisively shifted the balance. You might think that on the Alpha Course from HTB in London it would be the explanation of Why Jesus Died that would lead to personal commitment—but since the influence of the Toronto Blessing in the 1990s, it has been the ‘Holy Spirit’ day that has been seen as the turning point.
And yet there are people who have either come to faith or come to appreciate faith on the basis of thinking and analysis. Tom Holland is a historian, largely of the ancient world, and he explains in an article in the New Statesman how he came to realise through his studies that everything he really valued originated with Christian faith and not with the values of the classical period:
Familiarity with the biblical narrative of the crucifixion has dulled our sense of just how completely novel a deity Christ was. Most of us who live in post-Christian societies still take for granted that it is nobler to suffer than to inflict suffering. [Christianity] is why we generally assume that every human life is of equal value..In my morals and ethics, I have learned to accept that I am not Greek or Roman at all, but thoroughly and proudly Christian.
(You can see him in discussion with Tom Wright on this subject as part of the Unbelievable project.)
Rodney Stark is an American social scientist and author of The Rise of Christianity where he applied social scientific analysis to explore the factors that explain the phenomenal growth of the Christian movement in the first four centuries. He came to committed faith as a result of these studies:
I have always been a “cultural” Christian in that I have always been strongly committed to Western Civilization. Through most of my career, however, including when I wrote The Rise of Christianity, I was an admirer, but not a believer. I was never an atheist, but I probably could have been best described as an agnostic. As I continued to write about religion and continued to devote more attention Christian history, I found one day several years ago that I was a Christian. Consequently, I was willing to accept an appointment at Baylor University, the world’s largest Baptist university. They do not require faculty member to be Baptists (many are Catholic) and I am not one. I suppose “independent Christian” is the best description of my current position.
Stark has continued to argue that it is the rational element of Christianity’s belief in a transcendent, creator God which has had a major impact on the development of civilisation:
The appeal to reason also dominated Christian learning. Science, Stark points out, did not emerge in opposition to Christianity but within it: the first universities were established by the church, and early science was conducted almost exclusively by people in holy orders. Stark’s roster of the most eminent 16th- and 17th-century scientists reveals that a majority were personally devout and many were themselves church officials. What is significant for Stark is that the first scientists were not only religiously affiliated but religiously inspired. Science was a calling to discover God’s plan in the arrangement of nature, or, as Stark puts it, to “know God’s handiwork.”…
Even today, Stark says, the alleged incompatibility of science and faith is not supported by the facts. Recent surveys show that more than half of “hard” scientists such as physicists and chemists report a belief in God. A similar profile emerges in the life sciences. And if hard science is not antagonistic to religion, neither is strong religion inimical to science, insists Stark. “The most ardent evangelical Christians assume that the truth exists. And they don’t just mean that God is there but that the world is there.”
But it is not just sceptics outside the church who think Christianity is irrational—there is often a strong voice within the church that claims faith is about trusting God in spite of the evidence. Many of our songs talk about loving God—but they rarely mention the mind. Last week we sang that God was ‘Worthy of every song I sing’, but there was no line ‘Worthy of every thought I think.’ But in reality, faith and thinking belong together. David Wolfe writes (in his book Epistemology: the justification of belief):
The believer is a critical adventurer, taking rationally responsible risks. If he or she takes a leap of faith, it should be a leap conditioned by criticism in its choice of alternatives and responsible for continued criticism after the leap. (p 71)
Faith is not a leap in the dark, but a leap into the light of understanding and truth.
When we look at Jesus’ summary of the law, there is something interesting to notice:
‘You shall love the Lord your God with all your heart and all your soul and all your strength’ (Deut 6.5)
‘…with all your heart and with all your soul and with all your mind and with all your strength’ (Mark 12.30)
‘…with all your heart and with all your soul and with all your mind’ (Matt 22.35)
‘…with all your heart and with all your soul and with all your strength and with all your mind’ (Luke 10.27)
In each of the three versions in the Synoptic gospels, the term ‘mind’ has been added, in the case of Mark and Luke as a fourth term in addition to the other three that were present in the original in Deuteronomy, and in the case of Matthew in place of the term ‘strength’. What is going on here? It seems to me that there is an assumption in Jewish thought that the ‘heart and soul’ as metaphors for different aspects of the human life are assumed to include the life of the mind, but by the time of the New Testament period these metaphors had changed their meaning. Aristotle believed that the ‘mind’ was in the heart (‘cardiocentrism’), but a new school of thought was arising (‘encephalocentrism’) which believed that the ‘mind’ was in the brain, a view which we generally hold to now. So in order to communicate the meaning of the first commandment in Deut 6.5, either Jesus or the gospel writers (or both) needed to adapt their metaphors to this new cultural moment. Given the passionate and irrational nature of much contemporary debate, I wonder whether we need to make a similar shift, and once more emphasise the importance of thought in faith.
And there is a deeply theological reason why we should be doing this. The Fourth Gospel begins with an extraordinary mediation on the ‘Word, that was with God, and the Word was God…and the Word became flesh and dwelt amongst us’ (John 1.1, 14). Within the canon of Scripture we would naturally think of this Word as the expression of God’s intention which created the world, the ‘word of Yahweh’ which came to the prophets, or perhaps the word of God’s wisdom which functioned as the creative crafter at God’s side in Proverbs 8. But in Greek Stoic thinking, this Word, the logos, was the generative rational principle that shaped the whole world. The gospel is making the extraordinary claim that, in Jesus, both God and the world that he has created have been made comprehensible—an idea which (as Rodney Stark rightly notes) has underpinned Christian thinking about science and the way the world works.
This idea of comprehensibility is clearly emphasised in the teaching of both Jesus and Paul—but is something that we often pass over. A quick search for the terms for ‘mind’, nous, dianoia, and ‘understand’, including suniemi, noeo and epiginosko, shows how common these terms are in Jesus’ ministry. In the ‘last supper discourse’ in the Fourth Gospel, a repeated emphasis is on the understanding of the disciples.
I no longer call you slaves but friends—for slaves do not understand what the master is doing (John 15.15)
Earlier in his ministry, when Jesus saw the crowds, he ‘had compassion on them—so he taught them’ (Mark 6.34). Jesus did, of course, respond to the crowds in compassion by healing them and feeding them—but his compassion stirred by their lostness also meant that he healed and fed their understanding by teaching them about the kingdom of God.
This emphasis on understanding is also found all through Paul’s writings. Although he begins his first letter to the Corinthians by rejecting certain Greek idea of clever rhetoric and philosophy, he in fact deploys some sophisticated arguments on a range of issues, and wants the Corinthians to fully understand:
Brothers and sisters, stop thinking like children. In regard to evil be infants, but in your understanding be perfect (1 Cor 14.20)
Paul is here using the language of perfection, teleios, that we find in Jesus’ teaching in the Sermon on the Mount: ‘Be perfect, as your Heavenly Father is perfect’. In the opening of his letter to the Philippians, Paul has a similar emphasis on understanding:
And this is my prayer: that your love may abound more and more in knowledge and depth of insight, so that you may be able to discern what is best and may be pure and blameless for the day of Christ, filled with the fruit of righteousness that comes through Jesus Christ—to the glory and praise of God. (Phil 1.9–11)
Notice once again the interplay between love and understanding for maturity in the Christian life. And for the Romans, Paul’s goal is that their minds would be renewed as they grow in faith:
Therefore, I urge you, brothers and sisters, in view of God’s mercy, to offer your bodies as a living sacrifice, holy and pleasing to God—this is true worship. Do not conform to the pattern of this world, but be transformed by the renewing of your mind. Then you will be able to test and approve what God’s will is—his good, pleasing and perfect will. (Rom 12.1–2)
John Stott commented many years ago in his little book Your Mind Matters:
It is not enough to know what we should be, however. We must go further and set our mind upon it. The battle is nearly always won in the mind. It is by the renewal of our mind that our character and behaviour become transformed. So Scripture calls us again and again to mental discipline in this respect. “Whatever is true,” it says, “whatever is honourable, whatever is just, whatever is pure, whatever is lovely, whatever is gracious, if there is any excellence, if there is anything worthy of praise, think about these things.”
We shouldn’t be surprised by any of this; the life of the mind is essential for any love relationship. If we love someone, then we will both think about them, and seek to understand them. Relationships in which this does not happen are relationships which never reach maturity.
When asked which is the greatest commandment, Jesus then puts the second alongside it: ‘to love your neighbour as yourself’. If loving God includes the use of our minds, it appears from the New Testament that loving our neighbour also involves the life of the mind. When Philip is directed by an angel into the wilderness and meets the Ethiopian court official in Acts 8, the question he asks is ‘Do you understand what you are reading?’ (Acts 8.30). Philip then leads him to faith by means of an expository Bible study—not a method of evangelism we often hear commended except in certain circles!
In Acts 17, when Paul is given a hearing at the Areopagus in Athens, we see him make three moves. The first is to have a firm grasp on the essence of the gospel, ‘Jesus and Anastasis’ (Acts 17.18), which we understand as ‘Jesus and the resurrection’ but which they mistook for a male and a female god (since anastasis is feminine). The second is to understand the culture that he is in—probably helped by his own upbringing as a Roman citizen in Cilicia, since one of the thinkers he quotes, Aratus, was a Stoic philosopher from that region. The third is then to bridge the gap between the two, explaining how the answer of the gospel connects with the questions raised by their intellectual culture.
If we are to love our neighbour, then we need to do something similar. In his first letter, Peter urges his readers to do the same:
In your hearts revere Christ as Lord. Always be prepared to give an answer to everyone who asks you to give a reason for the hope that you have. But do this with gentleness and respect…(1 Peter 3.15)
The word he uses for ‘a reason’ is apologia from which we get the term ‘apologetics’. If someone asked you today, ‘Why should I become a Christian? Can you give me any good reasons?’, could you give them an answer? If not, then (according to Peter) our love for neighbour lacks something. Loving with our mind is something for neighbour as well as for God.
(Previously published in 2019.)
Me again, first off the block.
Could the word ‘mind’ be replaced with the word/s ‘determine, /ation’?
Hi, Steve;
I meant to send you a sort note, but its turned into an essay !
Jesus, in Mark 12:29-30, quotes the Jewish Shema, as originally recorded in Deut. 6:4-5, and says that we should love God with :
“all your mind”. ( ‘mind’ = Gk. dianoia).
Deut. 6:4-5 in the Greek Septuagint (primarily for Hellenistic Jews) says that we are to love God with :
” the whole of your mind ” (again, ‘dianoia’)
The M.T. Hebrew text of Deut. 6:4-5, uses the corresponding Hebrew word of the Greek ‘dianoia’, which is ‘lebab’ – and ‘lebab’ has a fairly wide semantic range which includes :
‘mind’, ”inclination’, ‘determination of will’, ‘conscience’, and ‘the inner person’.
So, in conclusion : Yes, the concepts of ‘determine’ and ‘determination’ are probably included in the concept of ‘mind’ (‘dianoia’), especially as they are products of the mind. However, I don’t think any New Testament translator would replace the rendering ‘mind’ in Mark 12:30, with the word ‘determination’.
Thank you Pellegrino,
Your answer is comprehensive. I agree.
I do think that it is implied that as soon as we understand, we should ‘make every effort’ to add to knowledge… &c, 2 Peter 1:5.
In the Bible, every instance of ‘make every effort’ is worth looking at.
Thanks Steve;
I’ll be rechecking all New Testament instances of “Make every effort”.
We’ve all got to keep going (Phil. 3:13-14) 🙂
I wonder what things he preferred to forget?
I could do with that skill, for ‘my sins are ever before me’
Steve :
Just claim God’s forgiveness, learn from your mistakes, and keep going !
Loving our Father God (John 20:17) with ALL of our minds involves looking at Jesus’ plain words that the FATHER is ” the ONLY True God ” (John 17:1-3),
and asking ourselves, is Jesus telling the Truth, here, or is He not ?
I think He is telling the Truth, but that’s only my opinion.
Isn’t engaging with the ‘deeper truths of Scripture’ ( as per 7 June blog) an aspect of loving God with our mind?
Engaging with our creator and the things he has chosen to reveal about himself and our world beyond the immediate need to have our sins forgiven by Christ.
Widespread suspicion of the Academy in much of evangelicalism seems to stem from its historical embrace of 19th century higher criticism – but in my experience evangelical biblical theology seeking out the truth of Scripture in light of its original context is now to be found virtually exclusively in the secular Academy – not in the church or Confessional seminaries.
And thank God for that, Colin.
We should not be pious obscurants wishing for the days when biblical, theological issues were never properly discussed and analysed.
I love this. Learning to love God with my mind has always been fundamentally important to me. It’s as we learn to love God, and seek him in prayer and in his word, that he stirs our minds and understandings through the action of the Holy Spirit within us. I see the relationship with God as prior to a beginning of understanding. The Orthodox Church talks about theology as prayer- I find this profound.
This is a very good article. My own faith has been deeply strengthened and become more robust and real as l have come to understand what Jesus has done and how God has worked in history.
Chris – this article left me kind of worried. I don’t see sin mentioned at all. I mean, if I refuse to acknowledge the radical evil within me, that I need a redeemer, then it absolutely doesn’t matter if I think that the universe was created by God and that Jesus, the Son of God came to dwell among us. I might as well believe that the universe happened by some sort of random chance and that there is no God. In the situations described, of various people becoming Christians, I didn’t see one where their pressing need was, having acknowledged their sinnerhood, they wanted to repent – and, from this starting point came to faith. Hence – cause for concern.
Jock,
In one sense, the knowledge of sin within us is inherent in this article. If we knew God as we should then we wouldn’t be floundering around trying to seek and understand him. It is our sin that prevents us from knowing God in the way we should – which Jesus came to put right.
A case of Jer 31:31-35 perhaps?
Chris (and S) – it may be inherent in the article. On the other hand, there are multiple understandings of sin.
As I’ve indicated before, I spent several years in Sweden – and I came to understand exactly what is wrong with the Lutheran church there. I came to understand that the basic message was, ‘oh life is so very hard and we are afflicted on all sides; we are the innocent victims of rampant vicissitudes and the difficulties of life. But if you come to Jesus, he will give you rest.’
Note that in this description I used the term ‘innocent victims’ – because the Svenskakyrkan people were very careful not to mention sin. They put a lot of work into making the interiors of their churches quiet, restful, so that people could soak in and feel the holy vibes in their church buildings.
Both with Stephen Kuhrt (yesterday) and this article (today) I feel that one *could* read the article, enjoy it – and it could resonate even if one had this false Svenskakyrkan view of what the Christian faith is all about.
Note – there may be Christians within the Svenskakyrkan and I don’t want to do them down. I didn’t experience the entire Svenskakyrkan – and I didn’t make it my job to become acquainted with the whole thing. There could well be pockets of Christianity within it – all I can say is that I never encountered this – and the theology of those Svenskakyrkan establishments I did encounter was pretty much as I described above.
I’m all in favour of loving God with my mind; I’m all in favour of serious bible study, but the starting point has to be correct; that I am a forgiven sinner and that I am studying Scripture with other forgiven sinners.
“Loving God with our mind” is just another way of saying, “believe God exists and that He rewards those who seek Him”, decide, act upon, determine, in faith, that this is the Way, and do it. It’s not a preposition for Bible study. wot i think.
Steve – yes – I think that is useful – and I agree with it.
Both with Stephen Kuhrt (yesterday) and this article (today) I feel that one *could* read the article, enjoy it – and it could resonate even if one had this false Svenskakyrkan view of what the Christian faith is all about.
Okay. Yes. But. You seen to be criticising on the basis not that the suggestion is heretical; nor even that it implies a heresy; but that it doesn’t rule out a particular heresy.
And I certainly have sympathy with the need to be on our guard against heresy; and I agree that particular heresy you have in mind is rife.
And I myself you may have noticed have a particular bee in my bonnet about loose language that could allow heresies to be smuggled in under the guise of orthodoxy.
And just because you’re paranoid it doesn’t mean they aren’t out to get you, and some beds do indeed have reds under them.
I just think that it’s possible to too far the other way; if we require explicit restatements of the basic fundamental truths before saying anything, then it just cuts down on the space and time for going deeper. Not every sermon needs ten minutes on the basics of sin and our need for atonement, that is likely to be already known by the entire congregation, leaving only twenty-five minutes for things people might not have already heard and accepted.
I’d say maybe we need some kind of ‘doctrinal soundness statement’ people should sign and then we accept that they are sound on the basics without having to restate them all the time, but we’ve seen how some people are able and willing to twist language to such an extent that they can sign up to pretty much anything while believing the exact opposite of what the writers intended.
S – you’ve hit the nail on the head. It doesn’t take much – just a few explicit remarks, will make it clear to me that the author is (or at least claims to be) a forgiven sinner – and then I’m on side.
But I have seen so much where there is a deliberate attempt to get ‘something we can all agree on’ – and since our inherent sinfulness – and how God dealt with it through Jesus Christ isn’t ‘something we can all agree on’ things get phrased in such a way that those of us ‘in Him’ won’t see anything explicit to object to – but you’ll find that your deeper studies aren’t with forgiven sinners.
Yes – perhaps there’s paranoia here, but as you say, just because I’m paranoid doesn’t mean that they’re not out to get me and lots of beds do indeed have reds under them – and I have come to understand that I do need those explicit signals.
I don’t see sin mentioned at all.
Think there may be a bit of cross purposes here. You are talking about being saved. Obviously no amount of knowledge can save you. As the leaders when I was young were fond of pointing out, no one is saved just because the believe Jesus is God. The devil believes Jesus is God, and he isn’t saved. No, to be saved you have to confess your sin, repent, and submit to Jesus as Lord. And you can do that without understanding much. The believers whom Paul was writing didn’t understand much (same as those who received the letter to the Hebrews).
But just because you can be saved without much understanding, doesn’t mean that understanding is worthless. That’s what this article is about. We should still seek to understand the truth about God, because seeing the truth is God in itself, even though it won’t save you.
Just a small but hopefully interesting point:
Brothers and sisters, stop thinking like children. In regard to evil be infants, but in your understanding be perfect (1 Cor 14.20), Paul is here using the language of perfection, teleios, that we find in Jesus’ teaching in the Sermon on the Mount: ‘Be perfect, as your Heavenly Father is perfect’. In the opening of his letter to the Philippians, Paul has a similar emphasis on understanding …
—doesn’t ‘teleios’ have the implication of ‘complete’ as in the ‘perfect’ tense rather than ‘perfect’ without blemish? In which case I think it provides a clearer understanding of what Paul is saying.
Teleios: ” … full grown, adult, of full age, mature”
https://www.biblestudytools.com/lexicons/greek/nas/teleios.html
Colin –
The ‘Complete English Bible’ probably seems to have got the nuances of ‘teleios’ right in Matthew 5:48, which reads :
“Therefore, just as your heavenly Father is complete in showing love to everyone, so also you must be complete.”
What a verse !
Yes I agree.
‘@JustinWelby
There is no justification for any province of the Anglican Communion to support the criminalisation of LGBTQ people: not in our resolutions, our teachings, or the Gospel we share.
After writing to the Primate of Uganda, I make the following statement:
https://www.archbishopofcanterbury.org/news/news-and-statements/statement-archbishop-justin-welby-church-ugandas-support-anti‘
https://twitter.com/JustinWelby/status/1667061465210126337?s=20
Yes indeed—as CEEC and other evangelicals have been saying repeatedly for at least 15 years.
Been a bit quiet lately though…
Well we agree on that at least
Well we agree on that at least
But if course if the government of the United Kingdom passed a law making homosexuality a capital crime, you would expect the Church of England to support that, right? After all as an established church you thing that the primary job of the Church of England is to support the state — even if that means supporting sinful laws. Right?
Homosexuality was a capital crime in England under Henry VIII’s Buggery Act of 1533, presumably supported by the established Church of England at the time. Fortunately things have evolved in the UK now and we not only have legal homosexuality but legal homosexual marriage. The established Church of England has correctly evolved with that and now will bless homosexual couples and call out criminalisation of homosexuality elsewhere in the world
The established Church of England has correctly evolved with that and now will bless homosexual couples and call out criminalisation of homosexuality elsewhere in the world
Social attitudes swing back and forth like a pendulum; what’s in favour in this generation could well be seen as anathema to the next or the one after that. Periods of libertinism are followed by periods of conservatism and vice versa. That’s how it’s always worked throughout history and how it will continue to work.
So if British social attitudes swing back in the future towards thinking homosexuality should be criminalised, then you think the Church of England should support that, right? And it should switch from ‘calling out’ the Ugandans to supporting them, right?
Because that’s the logical conclusion of your view that the primary job of the Church of England is to support the state and reflect the attitudes of the country: if the country’s attitudes change, so should the Church of England’s. That’s what you think, right?
No I wouldn’t think it is right but the established church by definition will always stay close to the position of the State (though I think the chances of that happening are near zero, the UK is now a socially liberal nation). If you want a church which is always clearly separated from the state don’t be part of the established Church of England, join an evangelical charismatic or Pentecostal or Baptist church
No I wouldn’t think it is right but the established church by definition will always stay close to the position of the State (though I think the chances of that happening are near zero, the UK is now a socially liberal nation).
Yes it is now a socially liberal nation but it wasn’t always in the past and it might not be in the future. The pendulum swings.
It is certainly not true that the established Church always stays close to the position of the state. In England archbishops have been killed for refusing to bow to the will of the King. It is an established church’s job to proclaim God’s truth to the nation, that’s what makes it ‘established’.
I suggest you check your history. When Archbishop Beckett was killed in the 12th century the national church was the Roman Catholic church whose ultimate authority was the Pope in Rome NOT the King, hence in part his clash with King Henry II. Only in the 16th century did the Church of England as a new Protestant church become the established church in England with its Supreme Governor on earth the King NOT the Pope.
Proclaiming God’s truth doesn’t make a church established at all, otherwise Baptist, Pentecostal and Roman Catholic churches would also be the established church in England which they aren’t. The established church’s authority to be the established church as Church of England derives from the King
I suggest you check your history. When Archbishop Beckett was killed in the 12th century the national church was the Roman Catholic church whose ultimate authority was the Pope in Rome NOT the King
Um, no, I think you’ll find the ultimate authority of the Church is always the same, and it’s neither the pope in Rome nor the king in London but Jesus in Heaven.
Proclaiming God’s truth doesn’t make a church established at all,
It doesn’t make it established but it does make it a church. Something which doesn’t proclaim God’s truth may be established but it’s not a church so it can’t be an established church.
The established church’s authority to be the established church as Church of England derives from the King
Its authority to be established derives from the king yes, but its authority to be an established church derives from Jesus. And if it ever has to make the choice of whether to stay established or to continue to be a church, it must choose to be a church.
So to go back to the question. If public attitudes in the UK shifted so that a government was elected which made homosexuality a capital crime, do you think that the Church of England should support that? Or should it stand against such a law as it is against God’s will and thus remain a church, even if the cost is being disestablished?
On earth the ultimate authority of the Church in England was the Pope until the 16th century, now it is the monarch as has been since that time.
Proclaiming ‘God’s truth’ and interpreting it in their own way is something every church will do, whether Roman Catholic, Anglican, Baptist, Pentecostal, Lutheran, Methodist, Orthodox, Presbyterian etc. It does not make them established like the Anglican church in England or the Lutheran church in Denmark.
The Church of England as established church will of course always support the core laws of the State as the established church, as it has done since it was founded in the 16th century. If you really don’t want to support the policies of the State then you should not belong to the established church, a church founded by the King with him as Supreme Governor precisely to ensure it largely aligned with the views and laws of the State
On earth the ultimate authority of the Church in England was the Pope until the 16th century, now it is the monarch as has been since that time.
The ultimate authority of the Church (whether in England or anywhere else) is not anywhere on earth. It is Jesus at the right hand of the Father in Heaven.
Proclaiming ‘God’s truth’ and interpreting it in their own way is something every church will do,
Ah. So you agree, do you, that if the Church of England ceases to proclaim God’s truth then it ceases to be a church and hence while it might continue to be established it will no longer be an established church (because, as you’ve agreed, if it doesn’t proclaim God’s truth then it isn’t any kind of church at all)?
No, the ultimate authority on earth of churches which believe in Apostolic Succession like the Church of England and Roman Catholic and Orthodox churches comes from the King or Pope or Patriarch of Constantinople. Jesus is the higher universal Messiah for all Christian churches, not just those believing in Apostolic Succession but evangelical ones too but that is separate from earthly authority.
No, the ultimate authority on earth of churches which believe in Apostolic Succession like the Church of England and Roman Catholic and Orthodox churches comes from the King or Pope or Patriarch of Constantinople.
No, the ultimate authority of the Church Catholic, which includes all denominations of the Church Militant, whether Church of England, Roman, Orthodox, Coptic, Presbyterian, Baptist, or anything else, as well as the Church Triumphant, is Jesus in glory at the right hand of that father.
More importantly you agree, do you, that if the Church of England ceases to proclaim God’s truth then it ceases to be a church and hence while it might continue to be established it will no longer be an established church (because, as you’ve agreed, if it doesn’t proclaim God’s truth then it isn’t any kind of church at all)?
No, not on earth it isn’t. On earth the ultimate authority of the Roman Catholic church is the Pope, the Church of England is the King and the wider Anglican Communion the Archbishop of Canterbury, at least symbolically and the Orthodox Church the Patriarch of Constantinople.
All Christian churches proclaim Christ’s word, that doesn’t make them established however, like the C of E, or even a church of apostolic succession, like the C of E
No, not on earth it isn’t.
The Church submits to no Earthly authority. The Church’s only authority is Jesus in Heaven at the right and of the Father.
All Christian churches proclaim Christ’s word, that doesn’t make them established however, like the C of E, or even a church of apostolic succession, like the C of E
So you agree then, if all Christian churches proclaim Christ’s word, that if the Church of England ceases to proclaim Christ’s word then the Church of England ceases to be a Christian church?
The Churches which accept apostolic succession absolutely submits to Earthly authority. Indeed the eartly authority of their Bishops derives direct from Jesus’ apostles, most specifically St Paul and Simon Peter.
The Churches which accept apostolic succession absolutely submits to Earthly authority. Indeed the eartly authority of their Bishops derives direct from Jesus’ apostles, most specifically St Paul and Simon Peter.
St Paul? The St Paul who specifically wrote in his first letter to Corinth that they weren’t under earthly authority — that none of them sound say ‘I follow Paul’ or I follow Peter’ but that all follow only Jesus?
I mean when you bring up St Paul but St Paul says the exact opposite of what you’re saying isn’t it time to admit you’re wrong?
And you agree then, if all Christian churches proclaim Christ’s word, that if the Church of England ceases to proclaim Christ’s word then the Church of England ceases to be a Christian church?
Ultimately Peter as first Bishop of Rome most importantly but Paul also gets a mention as a founded of the Christian church. It is not for you evangelicals to dictate to we non evangelicals about apostolic succession. We liberal Catholic Anglicans absolutely recognise the earthly authority of Bishops and indeed the descent of our Bishops from St Peter himself as first Pope when the Roman Catholic church in England was our national church before it became the Church of England in England in the Reformation
Ultimately Peter as first Bishop of Rome most importantly but Paul also gets a mention as a founded of the Christian church.
So you’re saying you are under the authority of Paul but you’re going to ignore Paul’s instructions that the Church is not under any Earthly authority? How does that make any kind of sense? Surely if you were really under Paul’s authority then you would have to obey his instructions not to put yourself under any Earthly authority in matters of faith?
And you agree then, if all Christian churches proclaim Christ’s word, that if the Church of England ceases to proclaim Christ’s word then the Church of England ceases to be a Christian church?
Paul was not even a direct disciple of Jesus. Peter was one of the 12 disciples of Jesus and first Pope and Bishop of Rome, so ultimately Peter is the ultimate founder of apostolic succession not Paul.
Paul was not even a direct disciple of Jesus.
Yes, he was.
(Well, a direct apostle, but that’s what you keep going on about, isn’t it?)
No he wasn’t, Paul didn’t even find God and Christ until after Christ’s death and resurrection. Indeed early on Paul even led persecution of Christ’s disciples as a Pharisee
Apostolic succession is ultimately claimed from St Peter as first Bishop of Rome and one of Jesus’ original disciples, not Paul
No he wasn’t, Paul didn’t even find God and Christ until after Christ’s death and resurrection.
Paul was an apostle. He met Jesus personally on the road to Damascus.
Apostolic succession is ultimately claimed from St Peter as first Bishop of Rome and one of Jesus’ original disciples, not Paul
You wrote in https://www.psephizo.com/life-ministry/what-does-it-mean-to-love-god-with-your-mind/#comment-426215 :
‘ the eartly authority of their Bishops derives direct from Jesus’ apostles, most specifically St Paul and Simon Peter.’
So according to you, not me, authority derives most specifically from St Paul, and St Paul says the Church is not to be under any Earthly authority but only under Jesus.
No, authority drives most from St Peter as first Pope and Bishop of Rome not Paul. Peter was also one of the 12 disciples when Jesus walked the earth, Paul was not and originally persecuted the early Christians until his conversion on the road to Damascus
No, authority drives most from St Peter as first Pope and Bishop of Rome not Paul.
That’s not what you wrote at https://www.psephizo.com/life-ministry/what-does-it-mean-to-love-god-with-your-mind/#comment-426215 :
‘ the eartly authority of their Bishops derives direct from Jesus’ apostles, most specifically St Paul and Simon Peter.’
Have you changed your mind?
Peter was also one of the 12 disciples when Jesus walked the earth, Paul was not
Paul met Jesus on Earth, just the same as Peter did. Paul met Jesus on the road to Damascus.
By setting up Peter against Paul you are doing exactly what Paul tells the Corinthians not to do.
Who was the first Pope? St Peter NOT Paul. So Paul might have a minor role in apostolic succession but on a forced choice Peter is the founder of apostolic succession as first Bishop of Rome NOT Paul.
Paul was persecuting the first Christians when he was a Pharisee. He met an image of Jesus post crucifixion and resurrection, he was not a disciple when Jesus walked the Earth.
Who was the first Pope? St Peter NOT Paul. So Paul might have a minor role in apostolic succession but on a forced choice Peter is the founder of apostolic succession as first Bishop of Rome NOT Paul.
That’s not what you wrote at https://www.psephizo.com/life-ministry/what-does-it-mean-to-love-god-with-your-mind/#comment-426215 :
‘ the eartly authority of their Bishops derives direct from Jesus’ apostles, most specifically St Paul and Simon Peter.’
Have you changed your mind?
Paul was persecuting the first Christians when he was a Pharisee. He met an image of Jesus post crucifixion and resurrection,
Paul didn’t meet an image of Jesus! He met Jesus. Just like Peter. That’s why Paul is an apostle. Because he met Jesus personally.
The Primate of Uganda would do well either to ignore Welby or ask him whether he is ashamed of Leviticus and whether he considers that God was homophobic in ancient Israel.
Do not take this to mean I support such legislation here today. I would simply be glad to see Uganda put the Archbishop of Canterbury in Check! and see how he responds.
Jesus of course never said anything against homosexuality regardless of what the Old Testament said and the Anglican communion is a Christian church based primarily on the words of Jesus Christ
the Anglican communion is a Christian church based primarily on the words of Jesus Christ
No it’s not, it’s based on the whole Bible. Article 7:
‘ THE Old Testament is not contrary to the New: for both in the Old and New Testament everlasting life is offered to Mankind by Christ, who is the only Mediator between God and Man, being both God and Man. Wherefore they are not to be heard, which feign that the old Fathers did look only for transitory promises. Although the Law given from God by Moses, as touching Ceremonies and Rites, do not bind Christian men, nor the Civil precepts thereof ought of necessity to be received in any commonwealth; yet notwithstanding, no Christian man whatsoever is free from the obedience of the Commandments which are called Moral.’
Jesus also promised a new covenant. Otherwise Muslims and Jews also largely follow the Old Testament (just Muslims add the words of Muhammed and don’t believe in the Trinity) and Christianity would be indistinguishable from them
Jesus also promised a new covenant. Otherwise Muslims and Jews also largely follow the Old Testament (just Muslims add the words of Muhammed and don’t believe in the Trinity) and Christianity would be indistinguishable from themJesus also promised a new covenant. Otherwise Muslims and Jews also largely follow the Old Testament (just Muslims add the words of Muhammed and don’t believe in the Trinity) and Christianity would be indistinguishable from them
That’s nonsensical, but can you at least admit that saying that ‘the Anglican communion is a Christian church based primarily on the words of Jesus Christ’ is wrong? The Articles are the founding documents of the Church of England and they say the exact opposite; they say that the Old Testament has equal weight to the new, and although Christians aren’t bound by the rites and ceremonies of the Mosaic Covenant they are bound by the Old Testament moral laws.
Nothing in the Ten Commandments against homosexual couples in loving committed relationships either
Nothing in the Ten Commandments against homosexual couples in loving committed relationships either
Can you at least admit that saying that ‘the Anglican communion is a Christian church based primarily on the words of Jesus Christ’ is wrong? The Articles are the founding documents of the Church of England and they say the exact opposite; they say that the Old Testament has equal weight to the new, and although Christians aren’t bound by the rites and ceremonies of the Mosaic Covenant they are bound by the Old Testament moral laws.
And the Old Testament 10 commandments says nothing against homosexual couples in committed relationships
And the Old Testament 10 commandments says nothing against homosexual couples in committed relationships
Can you at least admit that saying that ‘the Anglican communion is a Christian church based primarily on the words of Jesus Christ’ is wrong? The Articles are the founding documents of the Church of England and they say the exact opposite; they say that the Old Testament has equal weight to the new, and although Christians aren’t bound by the rites and ceremonies of the Mosaic Covenant they are bound by the Old Testament moral laws.
So what’s your point Anton? Is Kaziimba wrong to support the execution of gay men and women? Or do you simply think this is something that has no particular implications for the Church – like debating reform of capital gains tax?
Is Kaziimba wrong to support the execution of gay men and women? Or do you simply think this is something that has no particular implications for the Church – like debating reform of capital gains tax?
Or maybe he’s remembering what Henry Kissinger said about the Iran/Iraq war.
My point was against Welby. That was explicit.
You ask a further question, is Kaziimba wrong to support the execution of gay men and women? You ask it in context of my bringing up the facdt that male-male sexual relations were capital offences in the written laws of Moses, which evangelicals take to be God’s direct command to ancient Israel.
Remember, please, that God gave the Israelites a referendum on whether to accept the Mosaic code and they agreed. He did not offer a referendum on each law, however. Any such law in the West today would be so far away from other laws about sexual morality as to look absurd. It was the law in England from Henry VIII until two lifetimes ago (1861), however.
So I would not support such a law being put in place here today in isolation and without a referendum. I am not sufficiently familiar with the culture in Uganda as to comment about that country.
Interesting. What a slippery answer. Reminds me of one of those dodgy imams that used to get interviewed by the BBC, wringing their hands over quite how much they wanted the most extreme tenets of sharia law to be the law of the land.
You might be unique in seeking to bring back the Mosaic punishments for sexual ethics. Where does that sit with Jesus’s behaviour in John 8? I don’t if I should be surprised or not that you think Church teaching should bend to local culture after all.
My reply was written in good faith (and I would not change it if there were no ‘hate speech’ laws). If you think it’s slippery then I suggest you are not thinking through the subtleties of when Mosaic Law should and should not be an ideal in gentile nations.
The only Mosaic law that I’d enact unilaterally if I had political power to do so is the death penalty for murder – and that’s because of Genesis 9:6 written to all mankind.
Update: doesn’t seem to be the CEEC view now. They seem to see executing gay people as something on which we can have good disagreement. They oppose criminalisation, but in a very lukewarm way, and won’t say anything against the Church of Uganda’s stance specifically. Unlike their response to Prayers of Love and Faith, there is no hint at all of relations or communion being impaired.
Their actual position is that they are committed to reflecting further on these matters and engaging privately with GAFCON and GSFA so we can learn from each other in our diverse cultures.
The essence of the Gospel according to Dr.Luke, who wrote, ” of all that Jesus began both to do and teach”
I have on occasion pled for the church to focus on the teachings of Jesus along with the Jesus” who went about doing good”
The latter being ofteen used to “follow the example” of Jesus and be good to everyone.[ Jesus as our Example the meek and mild Jesus.]
The Teachings of Jesus were to engage the minds, theywere often counter cultural thinking, were combative, correcting wrong thinking,opposing those who opposed themselves, reproving, rebuking, warning, cursing , need I go on?
We are not only called to emulate Jesus but to obey and do what He taught[commanded] Reiterated by James not just to be hearers only but doers of [the thoughts of God]
Knowing God (Packer)
YBH?
Yes But How, is the question.
The heading graphic brought to mind an expression by the late Gordon D Fee.
Frequently, there seems to be a dichotomy in Christianity between “fools on fire and scholars on ice”, whereas there is a need for “scholars on fire.”
Maybe he was rearranging something that is supposedly attributed to John Wesley, not that he was a scholar, (evidently there are no recorded citations):
*I set myself on fire and people come to watch me burn.*
or
*Catch on fire with enthusiasm, and people will come for miles to watch you burn.*
Whereas, Wesley’s desire was not to attract people to himself, but to point them to the risen Lord who was their only hope of salvation.
And that is so unlike many high profile preachers/teachers, scholars and so unlike many of us who make idols of others: recognition, appreciation, acknowledgement, yes: idolatry no, of persons and professional guilds.
The Alpha course has its Trinity distressingly skewed toward the Holy Spirit and is rather light on the need for repentance, but it produces converts. It is important that they go on to read scripture in depth for themselves and so gain a balanced and deep view rather than one based too heavily on emotion.
Committing to Christ means admitting your sinfulness to Him and being sorry for your sins. It’s what pro-Christianity people like Tom Holland and Jordan Peterson haven’t done (yet?), and it is an appeal to the conscience rather than the mind. Incidentally a Greek word study on ‘mind’ would be worthwhile here.
Science and scripture are in active accord, because God the Holy Spirit wrote scripture and ordained the ‘fixed laws of the earth and the heavens’ (Jeremiah 33:25-6). The beauty of the laws of physics is as apparent to atheist physicists as to Judaeo-Christian physicists, but only the latter can explain the beauty: those laws were ordained by a God who has an acute aesthetic sense. Science and scripture divide, however, over miracles such as Peter walking on water and sinking as his faith failed him (Matthew 14).
it is not just sceptics outside the church who think Christianity is irrational—there is often a strong voice within the church that claims faith is about trusting God in spite of the evidence.
This runs back to Tertullian’s famous “I believe it BECAUSE it is impossible” about events such as the Virgin Birth and the Resurrection. Who would bother to believe in an unexceptional God?
Anton –
We live by faith – not by sight, just yet. (2 Cor. 5:7).
Thank God for Jesus !
Hello Anton,
I was 47 year old lawyer converted on an Alphha course.
I think it is a misrepresentation to say it was all Holy Spirit away -day. It eas a first course in Christian teaching over a 12 week commitment.
Looking back, I’d see the Holy Spirit away day as being along the lines of David Pawson’s proper Christian birth.
The course was held in the home of a GP, who enjoyed Polkinghorn’s writings.
Excellent, Geoff.
Geoff: It is the essay above which mentions the Holy Spirit away-day; I simply said that Alpha has its Trinity skewed toward the Holy Spirit. I acknowledge(d) that Alpha conversions are sincere.
I think highly of David Pawson’s bible study teachings. JC Polkinghorne wrote at inordinate length on the connection between physics and Christianity, although I agree with his points.
The problem with Pawson’s teachings was that every Christian was supposed to either speak in tongues or prophecy on conversion, otherwise they hadnt ‘received’ the Holy Spirit. Nonsense of course.
Peter
I believe David Pawson never said that and I challenge you either to say where he has, or retract. His considered views on the subject are contained in an entire chapter on the subject (ch.10, Glossalalia) in his book “Word and Spirit Together”. This chapter is in two parts, part 1: Tongues are not everything, and part 2: Tongues are not nothing.
I believe David Pawson never said that and I challenge you either to say where he has, or retract.
Is this a ‘Marxists get Marx wrong’ / ‘Calvinists get Calvin wrong’ thing? Because there are (or at least were back in the nineties) certainly people who do think that (some would accept being ‘slain in the spirit’ as a partial substitute).
Dear S: There are indeed ultracharismatics who think that, but I am not one of them and neither (as I’ve outlined) was David Pawson.
Anton
Re your ‘challenge’ below, that is what Pawson essentially said to me in a personal letter years ago, which sadly is long-lost. But I still remember his message. However as objective evidence, you might want to watch the following talks given by Pawson on the ‘normal christian birth’. I would suggest you watch parts 1 & 5: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=sp8Su1_XRTU https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=3PBGQQWz-0o
You might be surprised how extreme his view was – it apparently took 17 years for him to be born again, and that believing in Jesus is not enough to be saved.
Peter
Dear Peter (PC1): Doesn’t Jesus Christ himself say the same to Nicodemus (John 3:5)? And don’t the demons believe but tremble (James 2:19)? Any controversy is about how to tell whether someone is born again of Spirit.
I fully agree that the view you accuse Pawson of is silly, but in his entire chapter on tongues in his 1993 book “Word and Spirit Together”, he does not take that view. I have it before me as I type these words. I also have his book “The Normal Christian Birth”, of which those YouTube clips you cite are partial summaries. I am familiar with it and, although it does not contain an alphabetical index in which I can look up ‘tongues’, I recall nothing of the sort in it. (There is no mention of Tongues in the Table of Contents.) You do not give any time reference to ‘tongues’ in those lengthy YouTube clips, which I’ll watch if you will do so. I am not aware that Pawson held the ‘silly’ view early on during his time as a pastor and then changed it, and I have heard many of his bible teaching sermons running back to the 1960s, which are now available online. In the absence of the letter he wrote you, I wonder if you took against his teaching and are mis-remembering it after so long?
Please be fully explicit about ewhat you disagree with in his teaching. Already it has widened from tongues to criteria for entering the Kingdom of Heaven.
Anton, Ive already watched the videos I gave you the links to as I wouldnt have linked them without watching them. It’s best you watch those two videos in full so you get where Pawson is coming from. He is one of those speakers who is very easy to listen to which is why I was initially attracted to him. But I strongly disagree with his teaching, at least on this subject.
I stand by what I said.
Peter
Your idea that I don’t already get where Pawson is coming from is a bit much given that I have read (and cited) the two directly relevant books of his and am familiar with his teachings running back to the 1960s. I have asked for specifics and you persist with generalities, so I’ll do the same. Please read those two books and get back to me when you find something about tongues that backs up what you say. You are free to stand by what you say, but you’ll convince nobody without *specific* references from his writings or tapes, and I have given specific references to the contrary (ch.10 of “Word and Spirit Together”).
Anton, I really dont understand your last response, that somehow asking you to watch two 40 minute videos from David Pawson’s teaching series on his official Youtube channel is unreasonable and unspecific. It’s as if youve literally stuck 2 fingers in your ears whilst shouting ‘la-la-la’ so you dont have to listen to what he actually said.
If youre not even prepared to do that when you seem to have such respect for him, then there’s nothing more I can say.
I would invite anyone else, if they can be bothered, to watch the 2 videos and come to a different conclusion on what Pawson taught.
Regards
You seem to be unaware of the courtesies of intellectual debate when asked (politely!) for a specific reference.
I have watched the relevant parts of the first video and read the whole of The Normal Christian Birth. I do not find Pawson teaching as reported. Referring to Acts 8 and 19 he argues that the process of birth involves four stages: repentance, faith in Jesus, water baptism and receiving the Holy Spirit. Tongues is decisive evidence or confirmation of having received the Spirit at this initial stage. Later in life the Spirit may be evidenced by the fruits of the Spirit – and ultimately that is what matters. He emphasises that regeneration is a process, not a ‘once saved, always saved’ moment. Towards the end of the video he says, “We should be far more concerned about getting Christians alive than getting people ‘born again’. Birth is only the beginning of life. The most important part of being a Christian is not to have been born again but to be living, to be alive in the kingdom and alive in the Spirit. And if you are to live in the kingdom, you need all those four things.”
I couldn’t agree more (even if I disagree with certain other aspects of his theology). Pawson was a great teacher. I see the Spirit in Anton through the way he writes and the way in which he evaluates, seeking to live a life pleasing to God in the presence of God. Would there were more like him.
Steven Robinson – thanks for watching the relevant parts of the video and summarising them. I haven’t watched it myself and I’m going on what you have written.
Of course, the mantra ‘no holiness, no heaven’ is correct; if your belief means anything at all, then it means that you want to live a godly life, in accordance with His will.
At the same time, John 3:16 is absolutely explicit that believing in him (present tense) means eternal life – i.e. assurance that you’re already ‘in’ and that you’re going to heaven when you pass from this life to the next.
Pawson’s teaching – as you have related it – makes it look as if we really are slaves again to fear; while not explicitly saying so, it looks as if he’s indicating that if we’re not very careful, then we our eternal life is something that we can lose again if we’re not careful and on our toes as far as personal holiness goes.
As I understand it, the whole of Paul’s life and ministry after his ‘Road to Damascus’ experience was a response to the fact that he had been saved – i.e. he had come to believe and already had eternal life; absolutely no part of it was connected with trying to gain additional brownie points in order to make sure that he didn’t lose his eternal life again. He was not a slave to fear.
Dear Steven R: Thank you. What you say seems to me to be an accurate summary of Pawson’s position. Tongues is indeed *evidence* of being born of the Spirit, but he is also clear that one may be born of the Spirit without having this gift.
Jock: Have you moved the discussion on to “Once saved, always saved”? If so, that is a separate topic (although I for one am dubious of this doctrine).
Anton – read Steven Robinson’s post; it contains ‘once saved always saved’ as something Pawson was arguing against – so if the discussion has been moved onto this, then it was SR who did the shifting.
I believe that ‘once saved always saved’, properly understood, is fundamental – and is what makes the qualitative difference between Christianity on the one hand and all other religions on the other hand (in which their god may be encouraging you, giving you a push in the right direction, but ultimately doesn’t completely save you – and it is somehow, ultimately, up to you – even after you are ‘in’ and are a dedicated follower of the religion).
Jock,
The difference between Christianity and all other religions is (1) all others require you to work for your salvation; Christianity says this is impossible and salvation is a free gift that you should work *from*. And (2) Christianity offers *forgiveness* and a clear conscience; no other religion does.
Re Once Saved Always Saved, the New Testament is full of warnings about failure to reach your destination. The failure of most of the Israelites who left Egypt to reach the Promised Land is used as a warning in 1 Corinthians 10 and Hebrews 4. Paul, writing in the Greek world with its fervour for athletics, often compares life to a race, and what counts is how you cross the line, meaning your faith at your death. Immediately after using the athlete analogy, Paul suggests that he himself could lose salvation: “I discipline my body and subdue it, lest after preaching to others I myself should be disqualified” (1 Corinthians 9:27). Further warnings are found in parables of shoddy servants and unready bridesmaids (Matthew 25). Again, why bother if believers are ‘once saved, always saved’? Nowhere does scripture give an explicit statement of this claim. Of the believer who overcomes, Jesus says in Revelation 3:5, that “I will never blot his name from the book of life,” suggesting that other names can be blotted out (or why not give a positive word of encouragement, rather than a divine promise not to do something negative?) Paul exhorts gentile members of the congregation at Rome to “consider the goodness of God to you, provided that you continue in his goodness; otherwise you will be cut off” (Romans 11:22). Peter says of certain people that “If they have escaped the corruption of the world by knowing our Lord and saviour Jesus Christ and are again entangled in it and are overcome, they are worse off at the end than they were at the beginning” (see 2 Peter 2:20-22). Hebrews 6:4-6 says that “It is impossible for those who have once been enlightened, who have tasted the heavenly gift, who have shared in the Holy Spirit, who have tasted the goodness of the word of God and the powers of the coming age, if they fall away, to be brought back to repentance”. Hebrews 10:26-29 also warns that fire lies ahead “if we deliberately keep on sinning after receiving knowledge of the truth – then there is only expectation of judgement and raging fire…how much more severely does someone deserve to be punished who has treated as an unholy thing the blood of the covenant that has sanctified them…?” Anybody who has experienced sanctification must have been a believer. The entire Letter to the Hebrews is a sermon against “once saved, always saved”, because it is warning ethnic Jewish believers who were beginning to suffer persecution for their faith in Christ that they must not revert to Judaism.
James (5:19-20) states that saving a believer from serious error saves him from death. James means, obviously, the second death, which is hell (Revelation 21:8). The Greek verb tenses used in the New Testament more often denote a continuing action than conventional English translations indicate; for example, ‘we who are [being] saved’ and ‘we who [continue to] believe’. So the assurances are to continuing believers. To settle whether they apply to those who once believed but now do not, the verses studied above are the relevant ones.
Proponents of “Once saved, always saved” quote scriptures such as “I will never leave you nor forsake you” (Hebrews 13:5). But who is “you”? The faithful; but what if someone ceases to be faithful? There is also Paul’s rhetorical question in Romans 8:35-39, “What can separate us from the love of Christ?” followed by a list of things that cannot separate us. But we can separate ourselves from God. Proponents point to John 10:27-28: “My sheep listen to my voice; I know them, and they follow me. I give them eternal life, and they shall never perish; no one can snatch them out of my hand.” Jesus is affirming that no third party – Satan or anyone else – can do that, but we are capable of leaving the flock of our own accord.
Matthew 7:21-3 warns that some people who exorcise demons in Jesus’ name will not be found in the New Jerusalem. To do that it is necessary to have the Holy Spirit; when the sons of Sceva attempted exorcism using Jesus’ name but without the Holy Spirit, they learnt a painful lesson (Acts 19). So some people who have been given the Holy Spirit – that is, believers – will end up in hell. What we find in scripture is not ‘once saved, always saved’, but ‘once backslid, always backslid’. This is not a statement that Jesus has no power to save them, but a statement that those who backslide too far never desire to return to his fold.
Re Once Saved Always Saved
Is not the point that for God who exists outside time, the concepts of ‘once’ and ‘always’ mean different things than they do to us, and the confusion on this matter comes in attempting to fit into linear time something which inherently transcends time and exists in eternity?
Dear S: Predestination? Without doubt those persons who are going to end up in heaven, end up in heaven, and those who are going to end up in hell, end up in hell. That is a tautology. The question is whether they can be identified in advance. If ‘once saved, always saved’ is true then the heaven-bound could be identified with high accuracy, but I have argued above that it is *not* true.
The question is whether they can be identified in advance. If ‘once saved, always saved’ is true then the heaven-bound could be identified with high accuracy, but I have argued above that it is *not* true.
But they can’t be identified by us either in advance or in retrospect (the Romans are talking nonsense there); they can be identified by God but ‘in advance’ is meaningless to God who is outside time.
So I don’t think what you write here makes sense.
Dear S: This could swirl. Can you identify a specific True-or-False assertion that you think we line up on opposite sides of, please?
Can you identify a specific True-or-False assertion that you think we line up on opposite sides of, please?
It’s tricky because I think we are talking about different things, but of things I can actually quote I would disagree with:
‘If “once saved, always saved” is true then the heaven-bound could be identified with high accuracy’
I think this is untrue because the impossibility of identifying the invisible church of is unrelated to the truth or otherwise of ‘once saved, always saved’.
More fundamentally, you seem to be working on a framework were people can flip from ‘unsaved’ to ‘saved’ at specific point in linear time, and then asking the question of whether there can be another moment where the process works in reverse.
I think this is simply based on a false premise because there is no such moment. Salvation is a work of God and therefore doesn’t happen in linear time. Someone can’t be saved and then be unsaved because if they are not going to be saved then they can never have been saved in the first place.
This isn’t predestination because predestination has God creating people to be saved or unsaved. The choice whether or not to submit to God and accept salvation is still ours (contra predestination), it’s just a choice we make not at one moment but one we make over the course of our whole lives and that affects and informs every other temporal choice we make.
Hence the warnings of the writer to the Hebrews for example that there odd no forgiveness for those who, having understood what Jesus did for them, then apostasise, because they are revealing that their submission was never really sincere.
Does that make sense?
Anton
Jews do not work for their salvation.
Dear S: I disagree with Once Saved Always Saved, so I can’t respond to your answer to my question since your answer begins ‘If “once saved, always saved” is true…’. Perhaps I should have asked a tighter question.
We live in clock time and all of my language relates to that notion of time. That God lives in eternity and sees all time doesn’t alter my exegesis, I think.
I presume you’d agree that there is a moment of commitment in clock time before which, if you die instantly (eg struck by lightning), your final destination is the lake of fire, yet immediately after it your final destination is the New Jerusalem. (‘Heaven’ and ‘hell’ are terms that are rather less clear than some think.) Above, I cited verses which suggest that (1) subsequent backsliding is possible so that your destination reverts to the lake of fire; (2) after such backsliding, you won’t change destination again.
Penelope: There is no salvation for Jews today outside Jesus Christ, same as for gentiles. If you are suggesting that faith in YHWH is what brought salvation to Israelites in the era before Christ, I have much sympathy with that view, but the OT only becomes clear about that in the light of the NT.
Dear S: I disagree with Once Saved Always Saved, so I can’t respond to your answer to my question since your answer begins ‘If “once saved, always saved” is true…’. Perhaps I should have asked a tighter question.
But you were the one who wrote ‘ If “once saved, always saved” is true…’! In https://www.psephizo.com/life-ministry/what-does-it-mean-to-love-god-with-your-mind/#comment-426402! That’s why I replied to you with it, to try to use the same terms as you!
I presume you’d agree that there is a moment of commitment in clock time before which, if you die instantly (eg struck by lightning), your final destination is the lake of fire, yet immediately after it your final destination is the New Jerusalem.
I thought I’d been explicit that that is exactly what I do not agree with. There is no such moment. And your subsequent reasoning is therefore based on the false premise that such a moment exists.
That’s what I was trying to get across in my last in this thread. Was I in some way unclear?
Dear S: It matters little wheteher you were unclear or I failed to understand you. But we now have a statement that I believe to be true and you believe to be false, aas follows:
“there is a moment of commitment in clock time before which, if you die instantly (eg struck by lightning), your final destination is the lake of fire, yet immediately after it your final destination is the New Jerusalem.”
Notice, please, that this particular statement isn’t about what might or might not happen subsequently. The reason I affirm it is that although conversion might be experientially a gradual process for some, conversion means (among other things) changing the address of your final destination from the lake of fire to the New Jerusalem. God decides when that happens – and it must be at a particular moment in our time, because your final address can’t be partly the lake of fire and partly the New Jerusalem, and you can die in an instant. Granted that this instant might not be clear to the convert in real time, but that is not what is at issue.
It is sanctification that is a gradual process, not justification.
God decides when that happens – and it must be at a particular moment in our time, because your final address can’t be partly the lake of fire and partly the New Jerusalem, and you can die in an instant.
Right, and it’s your ‘it must’ that’s wrong there.
Let’s take an analogy. God, being outside our universe, and its creator, stands to our universe in some ways that are analogous to the way an author stands to their novel. Now, imagine an author is partway through their first draft when they decide that they would rather a certain character’s eyes be green than blue, say. So they go back and find every description of that character they have written so far, and make the necessary changes.
Now, was there a moment in the timeline of the story when the colour of the character’s eyes changed? No — and yet they did change. Your argument is that there must have been an instant when they changed because they can’t be part-blue and part-green. It can’t be a gradual change, you say, so it must happen in a particular instant.
But that misses the point that the issue isn’t how sudden the change is, but rather that the change transcends time entirely. It is not a change of something temporal but a change in one’s eternal destination (and eternity, remember, is not ‘a really really long time’ but is outside the concept of time entirely).
Of course the eye colour metaphor breaks down slightly here as that is something within the world of the story so let’s get a little closer and say the author has finished the first draft and then decides that the character, who in the first draft did tragically, actually should survive. So they rewrite the character’s final scene — now the character survives. Again, this can’t be a gradual change — the character can’t half-survive and half-die. But yet, again, neither is there a moment within the timeline of the story before which the character was going to die and after which the character was going to survive. The character’s fate has changed, but the change is from ‘always (within the story) going to die’ to ‘always (within the story) going to survive’.
So it is with us when God the creator and author of the universe, in His grace, rewrites our eternal destiny when we accept His offer of salvation — but of course He knows, being outside time and also able to see our innermost thoughts, whether our acceptance is sincere. So someone who converts and then apostacises doesn’t become saved and then later become unsaved; they were never saved, because their ultimate eternal destination remained unchanged.
Otherwise you would end up in the rather ridiculous situation of it being good to go around murdering peoples as soon as possible after their conversation in order to save them from the possibility of losing their salvation!
Dear S: As to the notion of killing new converts to assure their salvation, that would ensure the damnation of the killer and deprive the church of their services in converting others and deprive the world of their good works. Paul told the Philippians that he’d rather die and be with Jesus, but he never asked anybody to do it.
Here is my key point. If at noon a man is a committed pagan and hence headed for the lake of fire were he to be struck by lightning; and if he hears an evangelist and by midnight is a committed Christian, and would therefore end up in the New Jerusalem if struck by lightning, then at some definite instant between midday and midnight his destination (if struck) must have changed. No amount of discourse on the theology of time alters that argument. Please engage with it.
Anton, It does not follow that someone who does not rise at the first resurrection is thrown into the lake of fire. At the second resurrection those who are not ‘saved’, i.e. forgiven, will be judged according to their works and suffer the consequences. They will be judged according to what is written in their personal record book. If their name is in the book of life, they will be granted eternal life, not thrown into the fire. The book of life will not be just a blank book with no names. Scripture says, ‘If anyone was not found written in the book of life, he was thrown into the lake of fire.’ Understanding this changes the whole concept of salvation, and if you are taken aback, read my book – God is more merciful than maybe you think.
At the second resurrection those who are not ‘saved’, i.e. forgiven, will be judged according to their works and suffer the consequences.
That would be earning their salvation. No. Absolutely not.
Anton
That’s your belief. It’s not one I share D.G.
And Judaism is not a religion of ‘works righteousness’. That is a gross caricature.
And possibly a misreading of Luther. Although he was vilely anti semitic.
Penelope: Which belief of mine don’t you share? I made more than one point. Please clarify.
I didn’t say that of Judaism, did I? I said something different, and incompatible with the view you accuse me of.
Where there is any difference, I place scripture above Luther – who died antisemitic but was sympathetic to the Jews at the time he launched the Reformation; see his 1523 essay That Jesus Christ was born a Jew in which he states, “I would advise and beg everybody to deal kindly with them.”
Here is my key point. If at noon a man is a committed pagan and hence headed for the lake of fire were he to be struck by lightning; and if he hears an evangelist and by midnight is a committed Christian, and would therefore end up in the New Jerusalem if struck by lightning, then at some definite instant between midday and midnight his destination (if struck) must have changed. No amount of discourse on the theology of time alters that argument. Please engage with it.
Okay, let’s engage with it. Let’s imagine a person, we’ll call her Faith because why not, walking through town. At five o’clock Faith hears the gospel being preached, is converted, and at half past five the unlucky Faith is struck by lightning, dies instantly, and goes to Heaven.
The question is, if Faith had been hit by lightning at half past four, instead of half past five, would Faith have gone to Hell or to Heaven? And the answer is Heaven, because her conversion at five o’clock changes not anything temporal about her — not anything in her body or in her mind, the temporal parts of her — but her eternal destiny, which is outside time. Because of the decision she made at five o’clock, she was no longer destined from birth for Hell, she was destined from birth for Heaven. The decision was made in time but its effects transcend time, because what it effects is a change in something eternal, not something temporal.
This idea of some events — specifically salvation events — occuring in linear time but having effects in eternity shouldn’t be strange because we have an example in the very event which makes salvation possible, Jesus’ crucifixion. Salvation is only possible because of the curcifixion; yet we know that there are people who lived and died before Jesus ever came to Earth, who are saved. How is this possible unless the effect of the temporal event of the crucifixion has eternal effects? Before Jesus died, it was not possible for anyone to be saved; after Jesus died, it not only was possible for people to be saved, but it haad always been possible for people to be saved, and that’s how people like Moses and Elijah were saved: by the blood of Jesus Because even though that blood would not be shed for centuries in linear time, its effect, of making salvation possible, reached to Moses’s time just as it reaches to ours.
And the idea that God’s actions — such as salvation — must occur outside linear time and therefore change what we see as ‘the past’ is again obvious as God is outside linear time; so God could act no other way than to change what we see as ‘the past’. God doesn’t watch, as it were, the universe unfolding on a screen, moment to moment. God sees the whole universe, all its past present and future, from the begining of time to its end, all at once. When God looks at me He doesn’t see me as I am at the ‘present’, typing away, He sees the whole shape of my life, from birth to death, and its part in the vast four-dimensional tapestry that is his work of creation.
Anton
That Jews aren’t saved.
And that Jews hoped to be saved by works.
Neither is true
That Jews aren’t saved.
Who do you think aren’t saved?
If you think everyone is saved just admit it so we know you aren’t with listening to.
Penelope,
“Jews”? They have a variety of beliefs, of course.
Here is what I assert. I welcome your more specific comments on which of the following assertions you believe and which you disbelieve, and why.
Jews who don’t believe in Jesus haven’t been saved for the last 2000 years. Before His incarnation – those Israelites were saved who were sorry for their sins and trusted YHWH as revealed in Tanakh.
Many people still subtly believe that they can earn their salvation. This is explicit in many pagan systems, and a subtle temptation to believe it is in both Judaism and Christianity – a greater tempation in Judaism because it included a national code of law.
Dear S, you write:
“if Faith had been hit by lightning at half past four, instead of half past five, would Faith have gone to Hell or to Heaven? And the answer is Heaven, because her conversion at five o’clock changes not anything temporal about her — not anything in her body or in her mind, the temporal parts of her — but her eternal destiny, which is outside time. Because of the decision she made at five o’clock, she was no longer destined from birth for Hell, she was destined from birth for Heaven. The decision was made in time but its effects transcend time”
But if Faith had been struck dead by lightning at 4.30pm then she would not have made the decision to commit to Christ at 5pm, would she?
But if Faith had been struck dead by lightning at 4.30pm then she would not have made the decision to commit to Christ at 5pm, would she?
No, she wouldn’t. So what?
Dear S, this is actually a philosophical discussion about determinism and whether it is legitimate to discuss what might have happened, concerning any subject whatsoever – not just salvation. Do you refuse to countenance all such discussions, with others or within your own mind?
Dear S, this is actually a philosophical discussion about determinism
No, it isn’t. It’s specifically a discussion about the nature of casual relationships when dealing with effects that are outside linear time. It’s not a general point about determinism at all.
Do you refuse to countenance all such discussions, with others or within your own mind?
I never refuse to countenance any discussion. There is no such thing as a subject that is not up for discussion.
S: I disagree.
I disagree.
I know.
Anton
It is your view that for 2000 years Jews have not been saved.
That doesn’t make it true.
It is your view that Jews are more likely to be legalistic because they have the Law.
That is just an anti semitic trope.
And if Christians don’t obey the Law why are you always squabbling about salvation, sexuality, atonement, obedience, original sin, being born again?
If Jesus died for our sins, wake up and smell the coffee.
It is your view that for 2000 years Jews have not been saved.
That doesn’t make it true.
It is your view that Anton is wrong; that didn’t make that true either. Have you any actual arguments that Anton is wrong?
And if Christians don’t obey the Law why are you always squabbling about salvation, sexuality, atonement, obedience, original sin, being born again?
Christians do obey the moral law. If you’re in the Church of England it’s there in black and white in article 7: ‘ Although the Law given from God by Moses, as touching Ceremonies and Rites, do not bind Christian men, nor the Civil precepts thereof ought of necessity to be received in any commonwealth; yet notwithstanding, no Christian man whatsoever is free from the obedience of the Commandments which are called Moral.’
We are to love the only one God of the Jews (John 8:54; Mark 12:28-34; Deut. 6:4), and the only one God of Jesus (John 17:1-3; Rev. 3:12; Mark 12:28-34) with ALL of our minds – by listening to and obeying God’s Son, Jesus.
Our Father God (cf. John 20:17) has given us the gifts of reason (Gk. logos), and logic, and we are to employ these in the quest to better understand Jesus, and the original Apostolic Church within their indigenous, First century historical and cultural contexts. In this way, we gain a much clearer comprehension of just was :
” the Christian [Apostolic] faith that was entrusted to God’s holy people once for all time. ”
(Jude 1:3; ‘God’s Word Translation’)
Hallelu-Yah ! Praise God for His Son, Jesus – the incarnate ‘Logos’ of God (John 1:1) .
Where did you get your learning from, which bible college, institution that you’ve mentioned in a previous comment.?
Dear Geoffrey;
My learning comes from the Bible, and in particular the New Testament. I went to a Bible College, in the Wesleyan tradition.
“Is Christian faith about an affective encounter with God, or about becoming convinced about the case for Christianity?”
Neither. Christian faith is about being transformed into union with God. As Jesus said John 17 “As you, Father, are in me and I am in you, may they also be in us”. The trouble with a single focus on faith in the mind, is that it’s all too easy to reduce faith to a mental game locked away in your head with little to no relevance to the world or your place in it. Isn’t this the point of the healing miracles in the Gospels? They’re not as some like to imagine a proof of Jesus’s divinity; the disciples don’t really grasp Jesus’s divinity properly until after the resurrection, and they were witnessing the healing miracles all along. Rather we get portrayal after portrayal of God’s grace entering into the world with Jesus, which enables people to be healed by their faith – perhaps the most stark being the woman with haemorrhages in Luke 8 who touches the fringe of Jesus’ clothes and is healed, with Jesus feeling the power go out from him, and declares that the woman’s faith has made her well.
That’s not to say that the mind is irrelevant, but rather that it’s part of a much bigger picture. This is the point being made in James 2 – “faith by itself, if it has no works, is dead”. And of course, this also applies the other way around: works without faith are corrupt, and faith without grace would be futile.
Chinese philosopher Lao Tzu put it well:
Watch your thoughts, they become your words; watch your words, they become your actions; watch your actions, they become your habits; watch your habits, they become your character; watch your character, it becomes your destiny.
AJ Bell – where does sin come into all of this? Why was it necessary that Jesus was crucified? Why are we (by nature) not in union with God? What happens to transform us into union with God?
Sin is best seen as a sickness which prevents us from fully reflecting the image of God, and that separates us from God. And to be separated from God who gives and sustains life, means death. By God’s grace, faith in Christ is what heals us of that sickness, and dresses our wounds. Hence, the healing miracles in the Gospel are instructive.
It’s a mistake to only look at the crucifixion. The incarnation and resurrection are also vital. A mere man being crucified would do nothing for us. Even if he were somehow perfect, could he be scapegoated for the whole world, and how would that work for a loving God? Where would God’s love for that man be? No, Jesus is fully man and fully God. It is because he is God that is able to draw sin to himself on the cross and condemn it (see Romans 8), and because he is God the death on the cross is the supreme act of divine love. The victory over sin is confirmed in the resurrection, which gives hope to us all. Jesus, fully man and fully God, opens the possibility of eternal life for us (see John 10).
A J Bell :
” God was in Christ reconciling the world to Himself” (2 Cor. 5:19);
not, ” Christ was God, reconciling the world to Himself”.
For Paul, as for Jesus Messiah Himself, there is only one true God, Who is the Father (John 17:3; 1 Cor. 8:6; Rev. 3:12). Listen to the Master.
AJ Bell – well, I’d strongly disagree that sin is best seen as a sickness – because we might not be responsible for an illness which we pick up, but we are responsible for our sin – by definition (i.e. it isn’t something imputed to us because Adam sinned – it is our thought, word and deed, for which we are responsible).
I’m reminded of the discussion under another post a few days ago – where any attempt to try to explain the Trinity by producing an analogy seemed doomed to failure. Certainly, seeing sin as a sickness does give one aspect of sin, but it doesn’t give the full horror of the radical evil at the heart of mankind.
Other than that – if you change the description of the way you see sin to reflect this, then there is much in what you write that chimes in – your second paragraph strongly reflects the way I see things.
The problem here, though, is that different people seem to have a different understanding of what Salvation is (and what the crucifixion, resurrection, ascension are all about). We should be clear on man’s need and what God has done for us when we come to faith before we start asking (and answering) the questions posed in the blog post.
All metaphors are flawed. They’re helpful as long as you remember they are a metaphor to help understand a particular point, and not the “real thing”. I think the sickness view is helpful because it’s a reminder that sin damages us, and something we struggle to stop (every week we go to Church and every week we have sins to confess). For me it’s preferable to a metaphor of criminal law, which I worry too easily falls into a caricature of people just wanting to have fun but a grumpy God has a bunch of random laws He created to stop that fun. I wonder if drug addiction is a reasonable analogy (subject to the caveat that all metaphors are flawed).
I think you’re right that there is a deeper question about salvation – the original blog post seems to assume that faith is a single moment, and by extension so is salvation. We are asked to choose between the divine thunderbolt and the eureka moment. But whilst all Christians have a moment like that, is that the sum total? What are we doing after it? When we read the Scriptures salvation is not shown as something in the past tense that has happened to Christians, but very definitely something in the future as well.
The doctrine of the Fall and Original Sin is key. Because of Adams’s sin we all face the condemnation of God from birth onwards and are born with a nature inclined to evil. Jesus assumed human nature in the womb of the Blessed Virgin so that by dying on the cross he could suffer the punishment that original sin and our personal sins deserve so that God was just and the Justifier of all who believe in Jesus. God regenerates the elect by the Spirit (“born from above”) to bring them to repentance and Faith in Christ so that they are united to Christ in his death and resurrection. ” You died and your life is hid with Christ in God” (Colossians 3:3)
Phil Almond
Philip Almond’s thesis examined :
1. Where in the New Testament does anyone repent of their ‘original sin’ ?
2. Where in the New Testament is anyone immersed (“baptized”) for their ‘original sin’ ?
3. Where in the New Testament is anyone personally forgiven of their ‘original sin’ ?
4. To become a Christian (i.e. spiritually regenerated) one has to first have faith in Christ, then repent of one’s sins, then be immersed (“baptized”), and then one receives the holy Spirit, which affects spiritual regeneration (Acts 2; Titus 3:5). However, you say one must first be regenerated (i.e. first become a Christian) in order to have faith in Christ, and repent – which is totally unscriptural and illogical.
5. We are united to Christ in His death and resurrection through immersion (‘baptism’), which is something you have seemingly overlooked (cf. Romans 6:3-4).
Philip Almond’s thesis
While I would incline more to your side than Philip Almond’s on this, I would point out that someone who believe what Philip Almond believes can be saved, whereas someone who believes that sin is a congenital hereditary sickness can’t.
Pelligrino
What is your understanding of Romans 5:12-21, on which my view is based?
Phil Almond
S – well, Jesus does perform miracles, the greatest of which is saving people. So he can penetrate any mind, no matter how darkened – even if the mind has soaked up a view of ‘original sin’ that corresponds to Phil Almond’s. But I’d say that, from a Christian point of view, Phil Almond’s take on original sin is close to insanity.
Philip Almond – may I give my answer to the question you addressed to Pellegrino? Namely my own take on Romans 5:12-21.
The contrast presented between man’s situation in his sin and the miraculous transformation that takes place through the gospel provides the link with what now follows. Paul proceeds to explain how the work which Christ has done in his death and resurrection has such a profound, transforming effect on the lives of people. In doing so, he unfolds the basic presuppositions on which he has built his argument so far in the letter and indicates that what follows up to Romans 8:39 is an explanation, on a deeper level, of what he has already said. This is indicated by the connecting particle ‘therefore’. The argument runs as follows: all that has been said previously about the human situation must now be understood in terms of the solidarity of mankind in sin. Paul has already said that all mankind stands under the judgement of God. He now speaks of sinnerhood in terms of belonging to an order of existence of which Adam is the representative. Every person is individually responsible for belonging to the order of Adam. We enter the order of Adam by sinning and we express our solidarity with the order of Adam by sinning. There is nowhere in the Scripture that we are held to account for the sins of others and, indeed, the Scripture emphasises that the opposite is the case. This is explicitly stated in the book of Deuteronomy 24:16. The gospel presents a different order of existence, of which Christ is the representative and in which the power of sin is broken and people are justified in the sight of God. People sin because of their organic connection and relationship with Adam, the head and representative of the old humanity and they are saved through their connection and relationship with Christ, the head and representative of the new. The principle is stated simply in 1 Corinthians 15:22. Thus sin, death, judgement, wrath are traced to Adam, while justification, forgiveness, redemption are traced to Christ. The phrase ‘in Adam’ describes the prison house of sin in which all people, by nature, are held. The phrase ‘in Christ’ describes the glorious liberty of the children of God. To be saved is to be brought out of Adam into Christ. To be justified by faith is to be no longer ‘in Adam’, but ‘in Christ’ and, since Adam was ‘the pattern of the one to come’, we can be as sure that we *shall* share in the consequence of Christ’s act as that we *do already* share in the consequences of Adam’s.
This passage (Romans 5:12-21) is a key passage in the letter. The main thread of the argument is seen taking Romans 5:12 and Romans 5:18 together and treating Romans 5:13-17 as a parenthesis.
Paul is seen to be saying ‘As sin came into the world through one man, so one man’s act of righteousness leads to acquittal and life for all people.’ This then is the basis of the argument. As death came through Adam, so life has now come through Christ. Adam and Christ are not regarded simply as historical individuals; they are representative figures and each stands for the whole race as a single body, the old and the new humanity respectively. When condemnation and death came upon Adam, they came upon him as representative head of the race and thus the condemnation and death was equally valid for all people who were ‘in Adam’. Conversely, what Christ has done is a representative work involving, and shared by, all who are in him.
The idea of representative figures and the principle involved is illustrated by the story of David and Goliath (1 Samuel 17:9 and 1 Samuel 17:51) in which it was agreed by both armies that a victory for either warrior would count as a victory for his whole side. When the Philistines saw Goliath defeated, they understood that the God of Israel was victorious. They understood that the God of Israel was behind the defeat of Goliath; in Goliath they recognised their own defeat and they fled.
In the same way, Adam lost his battle and his side ‘lost’ in him. His side are those who express their solidarity with him by sinning. But Christ won and all his side gained the victory in him. They express their solidarity with him and become part of the ‘winning side’ by believing in him.
The entrance of death into the world and its consequent universal prevalence was entirely the result of sin. Death (Romans 6:23) is, as Paul puts it, the wages of sin. This is clearly the construction he places on the Garden of Eden story of mankind’s disobedience. Death is the direct consequence of sin and guilt and is the evidence of how seriously God takes sin. The universal spread of sin to all people is due to the fact that all people have sinned.
Pellegrino and others
On second thoughts: Ian Paul has said he will at some point start a discussion on Original Sin and (I hope) on Article 9 of the Anglican 39 Articles. I will reserve further posts until that discussion starts.
Phil Almond
Thanks for your interesting, long comment, JOCK.
I couldn’t find anything in there to disagree with. 🙂
To PHIL :
Thanks for your comments, Phil. I know (if I remember correctly) that you’ve had previous e-mail discussions on the ‘Original sin’ issue, with Ian, and it will be interesting to see Ian’s own present ideas.
There are intrinsic problems on how to exactly translate ‘eph ho’ in Romans 5:12, and on how to exactly translate ‘kathistemi’ in Romans 5:19; and, furthermore, on how to interpret Romans 7:14-25.
But having said all that, I would essentially say that the death that entered into the world through ‘Sin’ (Rom. 5:12), includes spiritual death (cf. Ephesians 2:1, 5; Matt. 8:22), which is manifested as a vitiated moral capacity to perfectly fulfil the moral commandments of the Torah (Romans 7:14-24). If we could, in principle, perfectly fulfil the Torah’s moral commandments, then there would have been no need for the Messiah to die (cf. Gal. 2:21).
However, if we do acquire from the post-Fallen Adam an enhanced proneness to sin, I don’t see this being the subject of “repentance”, or of “baptism” (‘immersion’), which are both for personal sins, only (cf. Luke 24:46-47; Acts 2:37-38).
These views on the issues may not be everybody’s, but they represent my current understanding.
I look forward, in due course, to hearing what Ian, and others have to say. God bless you, Phil. 🙂
Because of Adams’s sin we all face the condemnation of God from birth onwards and are born with a nature inclined to evil.
Objection: our natures aren’t inclined to evil because of Adam’s sin. That would mean our sins weren’t our responsibility, but Adam’s. Our natures are inclined to evil because we are sinful; each one of us in Adam’s place would have made the exact same choice Adam did.
Thanks for your interesting comments. ‘S’.
Adam in Eden, had perfectively effective free will, and deliberately and knowingly, disobeyed God.
Would you say that each person of morally accountable age, is essentially in the same position as Adam was, and they simply misuse their perfectively effective free will by choosing to do wrong, rather than do right ?
Would you say that each person of morally accountable age, is essentially in the same position as Adam was, and they simply misuse their perfectively effective free will by choosing to do wrong, rather than do right ?
No, I would say what I said.
O.K. ‘S’ – I respect your right to make no further comment, on that one.
God bless you, ‘S’.
I respect your right to make no further comment, on that one.
I’m perfectly willing to make further comment. You asked if I would use a certain phrasing and I answered no, I wouldn’t. In other words you asked a yes/no question and I answered it ‘no’. That’s further comment and I will answer more questions if asked.
Thanks, ‘S’.
Do you have any strong views on what is commonly known as ‘Original Sin’, ‘S’ ? I’ve presented my own little summarization to Phil, but I will be looking forward (God willing) to Ian’s future discussion and analysis of all the relevant issues.
Do you have any strong views on what is commonly known as ‘Original Sin’, ‘S’ ?
You’d have to define precisely what you mean by ‘original sin’ because it’s a rather wooly concept and different people mean different things by it. I dare say that depending on exactly what you mean by it I might well have strong views. Or I might not. It all depends on exactly what you mean.
I’ll tell you something, ‘S’ – I can’t wait for Ian’s future article on ‘Original Sin’. I think it’ll really sort out the Augustinians from the Pelagians – and all those multitudes who somewhere in between ! 🙂
I think it’ll really sort out the Augustinians from the Pelagians
To be perfectly frank as far as theological controversies go I’d be rather more interested in where people stand on the canons of Dort.
AJ Bell,
The Good News of Jesus and our eternal destiny in and through him are worlds apart from self effort Chinese or any other world view. philosophy.
And yet St Paul approving quotes the pagan Greek poets in Acts 17 (“We are his offspring”) to make his point to the people of Athens.
Christian faith is about being transformed into union with God.
Communion, not union. We don’t become one with God, or become gods ourselves, we aren’t absorbed into God, we don’t apotheosise or become divine; we remain separate from God, creatures not creator, but joined to Him and dwelling in His presence for ever.
Hello S,
I’m extremely wary about ipening this whole question up, mainnlyvdue to the presence of one commentator, but union with Christ is some of mainstream reformed teaching. And it certainly doesn’t include becoming god. And it certainly doesn’t give free rein to sin – just the opposite- it convicts of sin, in order that we don’t dishonour God as revealed in his Word.
Even this is but a feeble opening to some deep (sorry Jock) transformative teaching.
As believers we get Christ himself is how Presbyterian Dr Sinclair Ferguson, puts it somewhere in his writings.
S,
I’m also wary when AJ Bell downgrades, degrades or relegates the question of sin and cross of Christ.
And wary where AJB best sees sin, a disease or illness when we are dead in our trespasses and sin.
It downplays the necessity for the incarnation, the necessity for the Kingdom of God in the presence and Person of Jesus, the necessity for the sacrificial, substitutional, new covenant in his blood- death of the God/Man, Jesus (without which there is no union with Christ), the necessity for his bodily resurrection, the necessity for his ascension and reign, the necessity, for Pentecost his return.
Without which we are all God’s enemies, lost, dead in our trespasses and sin, from which we are saved, all completed, fulfilled by our Triune God.
To misquote, God saves us from God, (for Himself). Piper, J. (brackets are mine.)
Cue another topic; what is the Kingdom of today-where, when, how, why and importantly, who is in and who is out?
God saves us from God,
The refiner’s fire saves us from the fires of judgement. Only it’s the same fire. The difference is in whether you submit to it, and are made holy, or fight it, and burn.
The cross is justice, righteousness and mercy, all in one.
union with Christ is some of mainstream reformed teaching
Depends on what you mean by ‘union’. Union like the United Kingdom, no, absolutely not. Union like a trade union, maybe, okay.
But the term is ambiguous so it is best to be precise, as there are some hanging about pushing the heresy that we will apotheosise like Roman emperors, or pharaohs.
There is plenty of reformed teaching available to peruse, S.
A *Union with Christ,* search will bring up much.
There is even one contemporary Anglican exponent, Dr Michael Reeves. There may be others.
The key question,
of knowing God, comes before loving in body mind, and spirit.
YBH has not been attempted, let alone answered.
Does God, does Revelation, does evidence, have any part in knowing, then loving God.
Of course that how question has other questions enfolded within it.
Even the question of union with Christ presuppose multiple hiw and why questions.
A couple of BTW’s
1 I’d certainly be pleased to be corrected but I wasn’t aware that Tom Holland had become a believer. In his discussions with Glen Scrivener, a while back, also on Premier’s Unbelieveable programme I don’t recall Holland indicating s personal belief.
Atheist philosopher Anthony Flew became a deist/theist through think things through, but not sure if he was converted to Christianity. No doubt, if so minded, someone here could put me right.
2 what relevance does ” having the mind of Christ”, have to the discussion? Not applicable to unbelievers, but to believers what is its import.
Sure, this is a whole new topic in itself, but it is relevant and related to Ian’s article. It is more, but not less than a change of mind, a mind renewed, transformed, converted, from the ways of the world.
I think this might help with your question Geoff
https://www.churchofengland.org/news-and-media/stories-and-features/tom-holland-preacher-who-brought-me-back-church
Excellent,
Very helpful. Thanks, Andrew.
ANTON 11:18
Very good thinking today. Along with a word study of *mind*
I would add* teach” I remember some years ago a book by William Sargent “The Battle for the Mind” which forever made me realize
that this is the ground/nature of our warfare.
As few churches now have a Sunday evening service,that and Saturday night would be goodnights to impliment teaching modules
Having witnessed such attempts, alas, few takers,and thus folding.
Here again magnified leaders required.
Otherwise it will have to be Sunday morning Sunday school for adult chidren who need to get understanding and less tolerance of false teaching.
I agree also[other post] that the one note flute does tend to introduce a dicordant note to our proceedings.
Andrew Godsall
June 9, 2023 at 3:30 pm
Yes Andrew thanks for this, .churchofengland.org/news-and-media/stories-and-features/tom-holland-preacher-who-brought-
me-back-church. Dominion also is an excellent read
But the article typifies the anointed priest,though there were only few in number this event seems redolant of John Wesley and the reading of Luthers’ introduction to his commentary.
Poor John W. for all the teaching he left behind how devastated he would be at the Tolerance of present day Methodism.
I’d be surprised if many of those hard scientists that believe in God show up in church on Sunday as so much of contemporary Christianity is rote learning and tribal belonging.
Christians have retreated from curiosity/innovation – both intellectual and artistic.
I’d be surprised if many of those hard scientists that believe in God show up in church on Sunday
Prepare to be surprised then. There is a reason why university towns have so many churches.
I used to go to a Baptist Church, ‘S’, that was locally known as ” The Church of the Five Professors”.
Joe S –
Do you, by any chance, work in the ‘Public Relations Department’ for ‘Humanists International’ ?
Joe,
What sort of artistic Christian floats your boat.
.
Ah, Yes Steve.
Forgot, we have an artist from S Africa and someone who operates their own children’s entertainment business. ( He did a great sketch at an Easter extravaganza, mid week after school, with impromptu involvement of local schoolchildren and their parents.)
Are musicians artist? Well, we have those too. Inventive? Yes. They have written some music and arranged Christmas and Easter choirs, including childrens. And my, they are young, 20’s, 30’s, 40’s, maybe creeping into their 50’s.
It is an Anglican church, subscribing to 39 Articles, but is drawing in *refugee* and *migrant* disaffected Christians from other denominations, Methodist, Charismatic, Baptist, Catholic.
It is young (and they are rapid breeders) and old and multi ethnic.
There are 20 doing Christianity Explored and 4 men and 5 women doing Bible One to One and more midweek groups.
There is a suggestion that before Covid 1 in 10 people were interested in reading the bible and now it is 1 in 4.
Don’t know the source but no dout somone will be along to dispute and pore scorn.
All of this it not to big- up the church, but is to encourage, tthiugh comparisons can be odious and deflating.
No one would say it is perfect, but even writing this it gladens this oldster’s heart, which lacks the vim and vigour of younger, healthier years.
Have Christians retreated from intellectual and artisitic endeavours as Joe S suggest.
Maybe so but there must be factored into the equation any evidence that they are being excluded from the outset and pushed out. ( It is taking place with some ferocity in the academy, even for none Christians, who do not subscribed to the vociferous narrow cultural zeitgeist.)
The artist at church considers that the art world he used to inhabit revolves around libertarian sexuality. And it is hard to make a living out of being an artist.
In a world that simplistically divides people into “good” people and “bad” people, evangelicals are definitely in the bad people camp.
Perhaps there should be a renaming campaign;
Christian Conservationists – Conserving Christianity, Root and Branch, Heart and Mind.
Seems to obliquely cover one or two of todays popular bases.
Thanks Geoff for your reply.
I feel encouraged to carry on!
I would take an instant interest in any Christian artist who was also taken seriously by the art world.
While I’m fairly new to the church with a congregation of nearly 200 and don’t know many I’m aware if 3 dentists,ore than enough school and university teachers, including one head teacher than you could shake a stick at, 6 GP’s and hospital medics, and other NHS staff, nurses. There are others I’m vaguely aware of who while not certain, would likely fall into one of those categories, certainly in professions.
They may not be hard enough for your tastes, but I think you may be wide of the mark, Joe S.
It is a long time ago that I was at university. However, the CU there seemed to have a higher proportion of those studying science, mathematics and medicine than those studying history, languages (ancient and modern) etc. I think that might be because the latter group of subjects seem to be more about what my opinion is about something. The former group are more concerned with external criteria for correctness. (Perhaps in the middle, it was said of economics that each year the questions in the exams were the same, but the expected answers were different.)
There was also the suggestion that at some factory, the shop floor workers considered that science had disproved religion, so the only people at the christian group were people working in the research lab.
Interesting anecdotal, sociological observations, David B.
Well, maybe you should get around more? ().
Plenty of the science types around in my current church… and has been the case elsewhere. True… Mainly the Phds, professional research types and Medics rather than mere MScs…
Don’t come across much rite learning either.
Rite? Rote… Or maybe both…
To be a little fairer with Joe S
Reference Ezekiel where God is not averse to useing theater as a very vivid way of preaching. Or Isaiah who is reported to preach naked. They were a very good way to reach people who had little imagination. I was once in a church in Spain where all the walls were coverd in biblical murals. Dance is also much featured in the Holy Scriptures and a feature of Jewish worship even today.
The Church is not averse to science I agree only against science “falsly so called
Recently there was a humerous exchange in the media
Some scientist said that AI would lead to to destruction of humanity within a few years. to which his fellow replied,
Oh right, so we can stop worrying about Global Warming then.”
ALSO
Currently the world is focused on the end of the world/humanity along with the madness of one Mr, Putin may be it would be a good time to “Warn men to flee from the [ real] wrath to come.”
Paul writes, “Him we proclaim, warning everyone and teaching everyone with all wisdom, that we may present everyone mature in Christ. For this I toil, struggling with all His energy that He powerfully works within me.”
An excellent word study is *Warning* whih is seldom heard in preaching today. the trumpet needs to sound a clearer message.
1 Cor 14:8 For if the trumpet give an uncertain sound, who shall prepare himself to the battle?
I got converted on an Alpha Course on the ‘Why Jesus had to die’ session. I think peoples minds work differently by how much they are impacted by reason or by experience, and it is good that Alpha can reach both. I need to be convinced of the impossible. Others have to experience the impossible. We all need to accept the impossible with all our mind.
(This being where the Tom Holland fall down.)
Dear Phil, It might be a good idea that instead of leaving the topic of “original sin” until later; since Pelligro has ignored your reference to Romans 5:12 – 21, then I might add 1Corinthians 15:20 – 22 in order to order to convince him that while “original sin” per se,as a term, is not included in Scripture, nevertheless Paul’s theological understanding of sin cannot be divorced from the “fall” – ( a permissible word?) of man (Adam). It might also nourish a deeper understanding of “union with Christ ” than some of the other posts would allow.
BREAKING NEWS :
Pellegrino had indeed addressed dear Phil’s interesting point and implications regarding Romans 5:12 ff, and it actually looks as if Pellegrino believes in some sort of Pauline version of what is commonly known as “Original Sin”. I think he may be coming in for a bit of flack, for that ! (from sort quarters). 🙂
Dear Colin
I prefer to wait for Ian Paul to launch the thread on Original Sin and the Fall since I am sure that this will lead to an exhaustive and detailed debate. And for me there are two questions: firstly, can Ian refute my exegesis of Romans 5:12-21. Secondly, what is Ian’s understanding of Article 9: does he agree that Article 9 is basically agreeing with me, or not, bearing in mind that Ian at some point has made the Anglican ‘Declaration of Assent’ which (I know Andrew Godsall disagrees) commits him to the view that Article 9 is still part of what Anglican Ministers believe to be true.
Phil Almond
Thanks, Philip –
I’m off to scrutinize Article 9, now.
Perhaps potentially, there’s some ‘theological wiggle room’ ?
Just to be clear once again that it is *not* Andrew Godsall’s view but it is the Church of England’s express view since the latter part of the 20th century that ministers should not be tied down to acceptance of all of the Articles.
This is stated in several places but most recently here:
https://www.churchofengland.org/sites/default/files/2022-06/PROCLAIMtextWEB.pdf
it is the Church of England’s express view since the latter part of the 20th century that ministers should not be tied down to acceptance of all of the Articles.
When did General Synod decide that again? Was it in one of the sessions for which minutes are conveniently unavailable?
As has been explained before, the decision would have predated General Synod and therefore been a decision of the Church Assembly in 1968. The General Synod did not come into existence until 1970.
the decision would have predated General Synod and therefore been a decision of the Church Assembly in 1968.
Okay, so where’s the minutes of the decision of the Church Assembly, or are they conveniently unavailable?
Church House in Westminster will, I’m sure, be able to find those for you. I was not myself a member of that body.
Church House in Westminster will, I’m sure, be able to find those for you.
So they’re not available to the public. Convenient, for you.
I’m certain they are available to the public. I’ve told you how you can get them.
I’m certain they are available to the public. I’ve told you how you can get them.
If they’re available to the public, on which web-site are they? In which public library are they?
Something that only exists in a private archive is, rather by definition, not available to the public.
The Church of England is the national church. It is not a private archive. An enquiry to Church House will provide you with the information you are seeking. If you do not wish to make an enquiry that is your decision and yours alone.
In any case what seems to have happened — stop me if I’ve got any of this wrong — is that the Church of England, through lax discipline, allowed a bunch of heretics, who weren’t protestants and in some cases were barely Christian (and in other cases were openly atheist) to become clergy; when this was noticed, rather than expelling the heretics as they ought to have done, they decided instead to change the meaning of the declaration so that heretics would no longer be excluded, but, rather than openly saying that they were allowing heretics to become clergy (which even in those days would have caused a scandal, though probably wouldn’t now) they decided to do it by sneakily, and deceitfully, making the language ambiguous.
Whether they did that through General Synod or not is kind of beside the point, but have I got anything wrong?
It is true that the wording of the Declaration of Assent was changed. Whether the new wording allows those making the Declaration the freedom that Andrew claims is a point that I have discussed with him for years.
Phil Almond
It is true that the wording of the Declaration of Assent was changed.
But why was it changed, that’s the question.
Oh, if only the minutes were publicly available.
Discussing it for years with Andrew, Philip?
What a waste of time!
Andrew has made it clear, in short order, on this site, what his position is and he’ll not be moved, even as he claims his understanding is the official CoE position. In reality, it is, unless there is evidence to show otherwise, such as disciplinary proceedings for none adherence or integrity from those who did but no longer hold to the doctrines by their voluntary resignation.
It is unlikely that there will be any evidence when, as S points out, known atheists have been and remained in office.
In reality, it is, unless there is evidence to show otherwise, such as disciplinary proceedings for none adherence or integrity from those who did but no longer hold to the doctrines by their voluntary resignation.
Or unless the members of the Church of England make it clear that they are no longer going to put up with heretical clergy. Perhaps someone should tell them what their clergy really believe.
Geoff it is clear from legal opinion that a variety of interpretation in this matter is expressly tolerated. I quote at some length:
“(Arches Court of Canterbury, In Re St Alkmund, Duffield: Judgement (2012) Fam 51; available at https://www.ecclesiasticallawassociation.org.uk/judgments/reordering/ duffieldstalkmund2012appeal.pdf (accessed 10/03/2020). Citing also Re St Thomas, Pennywell (1995) Fam 50, section 58; and Re Christ Church, Waltham Cross (2002) Fam 51, section 25)”.
This refers to a Consistory Court appeal concerning an item of church furniture but includes several references to the Articles. This is an extract.
“Then in Re Christ Church, Waltham Cross [2002] Fam 51 at para 25 the same chancellor said:
“ … the Articles of Religion are now to be seen primarily in the same way as the other historic formularies, although Canon A 2 of the Canons Ecclesiastical 1969 states: “Of the Thirty-nine Articles of Religion. The Thirty-nine Articles are agreeable to the Word of God and may be assented unto with a good conscience by all members of the Church of England.” They are no longer a definitive formulation of Anglican doctrine, even though they bear witness to that faith.”
(h) In other words, “the Articles of Religion are no longer seen as definitive arbiters of the doctrine of the Church of England” (per Chancellor Bursell, QC in Re Christ Church, Waltham Cross at para 24). With this we agree and would point out that the view expressed by Sir Jenner Fust in this court in Gorham v Bishop of Exeter (1849) 2 Rob. Ecc. 1, 55; 163 ER 1221, 1241 (“Prima facie, …the Thirty-nine Articles are the standard of doctrine; they were framed for the express purpose of avoiding a diversity of opinion, and are, as such, to be considered, and, in the first instance, appealed to, in order to ascertain the doctrine of the Church.”) preceded the repeal of the 1571 Act and was necessarily based upon the wording of the relevant Canon then in force.
25. It follows that, although Dr Pickles believes and is entitled to affirm (as he does) that his own theological position is still defined by the Thirty-nine Articles of Religion, other clergy of the Church of England may equally affirm that those Articles are not for them the definitive arbiters of the doctrine that they are required to believe. This is of importance not only for all clergy who have to make the Declaration of Assent with a clear conscience but also in relation to the jurisdiction of the consistory court. In so far as it may, the consistory court must strive in the exercise of its faculty jurisdiction to ensure that any decision it makes permits the proper reflection of the doctrinal beliefs of the priest and congregation. Equally, however, it must strive to ensure that nothing is done in the exercise of that jurisdiction which may limit the proper reflection of the doctrinal beliefs of a different priest and congregation within the confines of the same ecclesiastical building.”
The change to the wording of the Preface in 1975 – and General Synod agreed such a change, minutes of the relevant session will be available fr9m Church House – was made to reflect the fact that clergy are not required to assent to each individual Article and may, with a free conscience, dissent from particular articles.
The To Proclaim Afresh document I have already linked to traces the history of this, including the debate at the Lambeth Conference in 1968.
Geoff
I dont think it is a waste of time. Whatever various Anglicans might have intended in changing the words of the Preface and Declaration, the proof of the pudding is in the eating: do the present words of Preface and Declaration allow the freedom that is claimed by Andrew and many others. I don’t think they do, given the accepted meaning of the English words used.
But, as I say, what really matters is the right understanding of the relevant Bible passages – Romans 5:12-21 and elsewhere
Phil Almond
“Perhaps someone should tell them what their clergy really believe.”
Surveys of what CofE clergy actually believe are carried out pretty frequently. Always make interesting reading. One quite recent survey is here:
http://www.brin.ac.uk/anglican-clergy-poll-and-other-news/
There are plenty of others undertaken over the last 20 years or so.
Surveys of what CofE clergy actually believe are carried out pretty frequently. Always make interesting reading. One quite recent survey is here:
http://www.brin.ac.uk/anglican-clergy-poll-and-other-news/
I was going to say that there are no questions in that survey about belief at all; it’s all either social attitudes or opinions on Church of England institutions. But then they did sneak two questions on belief in right at the very end.
But there were no questions in the fundamentals of the faith like: do you believe in universal salvation? In final judgment? That the virgin birth and physical resurrection happened as described in the Bible? That the Bible is the Word if God?
Also, I didn’t mean a survey that aggregates and anonymises responses. I mean that members have a right to know what each individual member of the clergy believes, and that somebody should tell them.
Somebody does tell them, but you wouldn’t like how it was done.
And it would never be the right way for you.
So there we shall leave it 🙂
Somebody does tell them, but you wouldn’t like how it was done.
Oh, how is that then?
Andrew – I am interested in Andrew Godsall’s view – because you’re often involved in the discussions here and I’m trying to figure out where it is coming from (and I’m not so interested in something as general and abstract as the C. of E. view – which is necessarily ill-defined).
Someone here once suggested that your own theology was aligned to that presented by JAT Robinson in his ‘Honest to God’.
Would this be a fair assessment? Or not? (I did read his book once upon a time – and I thought basically amounted to a rejection of the Christian faith).
Hi .jock
I’m not quite sure what you are asking but Honest to God rather predates me. I’ve read it, but it was taken pretty much for granted in academic theological circles when I started to study.
I have studied theology at Birmingham, Oxford and Exeter Universities, beginning in the second half of the 70s when it was an exciting time to study. I’m happier with systematics and the philosophy of religion as opposed to biblical studies, but have done my fair share of that as well.
I became an Anglican by accident really. I was a shift worker for the BBC World Service and one Easter felt called to go to church. My local CofE had daily services which suited my shift work. I was baptised as an adult. I worked as a Radio Producer with the World Service religious programmes dept which was, of course, multi faith in its approach. I studied world religions at Birmingham.
In terms of worship I’m drawn to much more formal types of worship and worked at a Cathedral for 13 years or so. I’m drawn to Orthodox worship as I find it’s easier to be drawn into the worship of the saints. I love silence so enjoy Quaker meetings. I don’t understand evangelical styles of worship very well.
Does any of that help?!
I became an Anglican by accident really. I was a shift worker for the BBC World Service and one Easter felt called to go to church. My local CofE had daily services which suited my shift work. I was baptised as an adult.
So what was it that convinced you that a Jewish itinerant preacher in the first century was in fact the creator of the universe, born of a virgin with no genetic material in his cells from any human father?
God moves in a mysterious way eh S?
God moves in a mysterious way eh
So what was it that convinced you that a Jewish itinerant preacher in the first century was in fact the creator of the universe, born of a virgin with no genetic material in his cells from any human father?
Hello Andrew,
Thanks for this. I’m wondering what motivated you to give up being a lighting engineer at the BBC (an important job – which needs people of ability) to go into the church. It’s one thing becoming an Anglican and getting baptised – quite another to give up a good job and go into the ministry.
Was it a particular message of sin and redemption through Jesus Christ that you felt the church should be communicating (and where you could be of service)? Or was it to preserve the styles of worship which you liked (and which were – and still are – being eradicated in favour of a more boppy approach)?
In short – what did you want to communicate to people – and how does the message differ from what the ‘evangelicals’ want to communicate?
With Orthodox – my only point of contact is the theology that one finds in the novels by Dostoevsky – which is important, but I don’t see the message of Salvation there.
Hi Jock
I don’t want to detract from the thread here. It isn’t my blog…so. briefly.
I wasn’t a lighting engineer but a sound engineer in radio. I don’t get television. The pictures are much better in radio.
I sensed a vocation to ministry and had that tested and was recommended for training. Enabling others to discover their vocation is an enormous privilege and I have worked in that area and that was probably my favourite role in the CofE.
Central message of the gospel is the incarnation. God becoming one of us. So the hymn that Paul uses in Philippians is a key text for me.
I don’t think the message I want to communicate differs from evangelicals. It’s evangelical styles of worship I find hard to understand, not their central theology. In developing teaching for clergy I partnered with CPAS and am a huge admirer of their work. Read about it here:
https://www.cpas.org.uk/basis-faith
Their emphasis on grace is so central. And that’s what the incarnation is all about and what the life of Christ was all about. Grace is what enables salvation.
The Anglican five marks of mission were being developed when I was training for ordination and I agree that they represent the call for all God’s people
To proclaim the Good News of the Kingdom
To teach, baptise and nurture new believers
To respond to human need by loving service
To transform unjust structures of society, to challenge violence of every kind and pursue peace and reconciliation
To strive to safeguard the integrity of creation, and sustain and renew the life of the earth
To proclaim the Good News of the Kingdom
What, in your view, is the good news of the Kingdom, exactly?
And, what was it that convinced you that a Jewish itinerant preacher in the first century was in fact the creator of the universe, born of a virgin with no genetic material in his cells from any human father? You say you were baptised as an adult so presumably at some point in your adult life you weren’t convinced of that fact but now you are; so what changed your mind?
Luke 4:18-19 is what the good news of the kingdom is, distilled to its essence.
What changed my mind? l’ve answered that question: God did.
Andrew Godsall
June 12, 2023 at 9:14 am
Luke 4:18-19 is what the good news of the kingdom is, distilled to its essence.
“…to preach the gospel to the poor…” draws our attention to everything that Christ said. Including the terrible warnings as well as the wonderful promises.
Phil Almond
Luke 4:18-19 is what the good news of the kingdom is, distilled to its essence.
That just quotes Jesus as saying that He has come to bring the good news; it doesn’t say exactly what the good news is. So what do you think the good news is, exactly ?
What changed my mind? l’ve answered that question: God did.
No, God is a who, not a what. I didn’t ask who convinced you, I asked what. I mean what convinced you that Jesus being the son of God is just as much a fact as man walking on the moon. If I wasn’t convinced of that fact, how would you prove me wrong?
S: this is the quote from Luke
The Spirit of the Lord is upon me,
because he has anointed me
to proclaim good news to the poor.
He has sent me to proclaim liberty to the captives
and recovering of sight to the blind,
to set at liberty those who are oppressed,
19 to proclaim the year of the Lord’s favour
Those things certainly are exactly what the good news is.
God is a what and a who. And God in Christ convinced me.
I’m not put to prove you wrong, but to prove that God in Christ was right I’d serve you. And listen to you.
Now – this blog isn’t about me S and you are trolling so I will not be responding to you again. I was responding to Jock. But thanks for your interest.
He has sent me to proclaim liberty to the captives
and recovering of sight to the blind,
to set at liberty those who are oppressed, to proclaim the year of the Lord’s favour
Those things certainly are exactly what the good news is.
Okay, I suppose sight to the blind is news to the blind but I am not blind so it’s not really good news for me. Liberty to the captives? I’m not a captive so again nothing there for me. Are you saying that there’s no good news for me?
God is a what and a who. And God in Christ convinced me.</i
How did He convince you? What did He say? How do you know it was Him and not just your imagination?
I’m not put to prove you wrong, but to prove that God in Christ was right I’d serve you.
How would that prove that an itinerant Jewish preacher in the first century war actually the creator of the universe, though? I don’t understand how that proved anything.
And listen to you.
That’s a lie — you don’t listen to anything I write. If you did you would answer the questions I ask instead of trying to wind me up.
So, what did God do or say to convince you that an itinerant Jewish preacher in the first century was actually the creator of the universe, and how do you know it was really God who did or said it?
you are trolling
And, I mean, I’m not. Trolling is asking insincere questions, and my questions are perfectly sincere. I really honestly do want to know what it is convinced you of the truth of the specific factual claims of Christianity.
This describes you exactly S.
As I said, thanks for your interest. I will not feed your trolling ….
Trolling is when someone posts or comments online to ‘bait’ people, which means deliberately provoking an argument or emotional reaction. In some cases they say things they don’t even believe, just to cause drama. In other cases, they may not agree with the views of another person or group online, so they try to discredit, humiliate or punish them. This may include online hate – personal attacks that target someone because of their race, culture, religion, gender, sexual orientation or disability. The troll may also encourage mob mentality, urging others to join in the attack so it becomes a pile on.
Trolls often post under a fake name or anonymously, so they can say things without being held responsible. This can make them feel more powerful and less cautious than they would be if they were talking to someone ‘IRL’ or in person. This makes it difficult to identify who actually left the post or comment.
Trolls also often try to downplay the impact of their behaviour, claiming anyone who’s upset by their posts or comments is overreacting. They may say it was just a joke, or the person who they targeted needs to toughen up. This can make the person who was trolled feel even worse.
This describes you exactly
Trolling is being insincere to get a reaction. I have never asked an insincere question nor written anything I do not believe, except as obvious sarcasm.
I honestly sincerely would like to know what convinced you of the truth of the specific factual classics of Christianity. If you can’t put won’t answer then it suggests that you are not actually convinced of the truth of those claims.
Hello Andrew –
I wouldn’t be able to answer the question posed by S either – the answer to how did I come by faith is: I dunno – but however it happened, I know that I believe now – and I know it was the work of God.
So theologically you place yourself not-so-far from the evangelicals – but you don’t understand / like their worship. That’s basically what I wanted to know. I can sympathise with that – I’m ‘out of touch’ with current trends in worship and what is considered ‘evangelical worship’ (I haven’t lived in the UK since 1990 and I haven’t lived in an English-speaking country since 1996), but I suspect that I know what you mean.
I don’t think this discussion is so off-topic; it all forms part of what it means to love God (which necessarily includes ‘with the mind’), but – as you say – probably best to leave it there for now.
Andrew – p.s. – apologies for the misunderstanding. Sound engineer for BBC radio is a much more useful job for the general benefit of mankind than lighting engineer for BBC TV. I personally found TV to be pretty much a waste of time – while I enjoyed quite a lot of BBC radio.
I wouldn’t be able to answer the question posed
What?! But you are convinced that the specific factual claims of Christianity are true, right? So something convinced you, right? What was it? If I were to argue with you that in fact Jesus the preacher from Nazareth was not the creator of the universe but just a man who lived and died, what would be your counter-argument? And if you don’t have one what on Earth are you doing wasting your time in a church worshiping someone who isn’t even God?
S – it boils down to the fact that I know that I am a sinner.
The existence of a God who is Creator of everything is something which I never had a problem with – I suppose this was something imprinted on my heart and mind, because I don’t actually remember a time when I doubted this or when this seemed somehow illogical.
The issue is (and was) therefore the moral issue – of being right with a Holy God – knowing what is in my own heart and mind – and not being destined for the eternal lake of fire. The Christian understanding of all of this, who Jesus was, what he did on Calvary, basically made sense to me from the first I heard it – but I was brought up with all of this at home – and I honestly can’t remember a time when it wasn’t there.
I suppose I developed a much more precise understanding of what I believed when I read Emil Brunner’s ‘The Mediator’ (he’s actually good straight down-the-line conservative evangelical for the first 335 pages of that book – at that point he questions the virgin birth – there is none of his ‘natural theology’ of his later years there), but I think I had actually come to faith long before then.
So the honest answer is that I really don’t know.
I don’t actually remember a time when I doubted this or when this seemed somehow illogical.
I didn’t ask when you were convinced, though, I asked what convinced you. Like, I can’t remember when I was convinced that the interior angles of a triangle on a plane must sum to a straight line, and I certainly don’t remember a time when that didn’t make sense to me or when I doubted it, but I know the proof that convinced me.
If I rephrased the question into the present tense — what convinces you — would you be able to answer it?
When you start to doubt and wonder whether Jesus really was the creator of the universe, or if you’ve got it all wrong, what arguments do you remember to go, ‘ah, no, He is’?
Thanks Jock. I think grace is a sufficient mystery to be simply glad it’s there rather than over analysing and over thinking how it works. The same with the incarnation. I don’t think there is enough space for mystery and silence in evangelical worship and I just don’t get it. I need room and space. What was it some one said about the incarnation: it’s wonderful to know that the word became flesh, but why have you Christians spent two thousand years turning it back into words again!? That describes exactly what I think. Poor talkative little Christianity.
Thanks for this exchange. It’s been fruitful – for me, at least.
I think grace is a sufficient mystery to be simply glad it’s there
How do you know it’s there? As far as I can see you have no reason at all to think it is there.
What was it some one said about the incarnation: it’s wonderful to know that the word became flesh, but why have you Christians spent two thousand years turning it back into words again!?
And how do you know the Word became flesh?
Andrew – yes – thanks to you. The discussion was useful – and enjoyable – thanks for engaging.
The fruit of the holy Spirit, Colin, is love, peace and joy.
God bless you, Colin.
To be accepted on the church roll, confirmation of acceptance of the 39 Articles is required, that includes ministers, wardens and church council members and a recently appointed minister in training from Oak Hill.
Excuse me, where does it say that? It certainly is not a requirement anywhere in the CofE.
I think not!
What is the “Church roll”.
I know what the Parish Electoral Roll is… and the 49 Articles doesn’t come near it…
Or even the 39 Articles..
Ian – the ‘church roll’ is the bread that they use for communion.
To save you looking it up here is the Declaration of Assent and Preface in its modern form. I think the wording does commit to belief in the truth of all the Articles. I also include Canon A5 which is relevant.
C 15 Of the Declaration of Assent
1(1) The Declaration of Assent to be made under this Canon shall be in the form set out below:
PREFACE
The Church of England is part of the One, Holy, Catholic and Apostolic Church worshipping the one true God, Father, Son and Holy Spirit. It professes the faith uniquely revealed in the Holy Scriptures and set forth in the catholic creeds, which faith the Church is called upon to proclaim afresh in each generation. Led by the Holy Spirit, it has borne witness to Christian truth in its historic formularies, the Thirty-nine Articles of Religion, The Book of Common Prayer and the Ordering of Bishops, Priests and Deacons. In the declaration you are about to make will you affirm your loyalty to this inheritance of faith as your inspiration and guidance under God in bringing the grace and truth of Christ to this generation and making him known to those in your care?
Declaration of Assent
I, A B, do so affirm, and accordingly declare my belief in the faith which is revealed in the Holy Scriptures and set forth in the catholic creeds and to which the historic formularies of the Church of England bear witness; and in public prayer and administration of the sacraments, I will use only the forms of service which are authorized or allowed by Canon.
A 5 Of the doctrine of the Church of England
The doctrine of the Church of England is grounded in the Holy Scriptures, and in such teachings of the ancient Fathers and Councils of the Church as are agreeable to the said Scriptures.
In particular such doctrine is to be found in the Thirty-nine Articles of Religion, The Book of Common Prayer, and the Ordinal.
Andrew can point to other General Synod papers which throw doubt on this and were intended to weaken the Declaration but I am going on the wording as it stands
However ok course what really matters is what the Bible says. I look forward to debating with Ian Paul on Romans 5:12-21 and other passages which have a bearing on Original Sin.
Phil Almond
Absolutely, Phil.
It is the Bible that has to be our sole infallible source of authority for Christian faith and practice.
I, A B, do so affirm, and accordingly declare my belief in the faith which is revealed in the Holy Scriptures and set forth in the catholic creeds and to which the historic formularies of the Church of England bear witness
And as we know Andrew Godsall manages to say this by mentally inserting the word ‘false’ (or at least ‘flawed’) in between ‘bear’ and ‘witness’.
Which is a bit like someone defending themselves on a perjury charge by claiming that when they swore to tell the truth, the whole truth and nothing but the truth they mentally inserted the word ‘relevant’ and so any time they were asked during cross-examination about something they didn’t consider relevant they just didn’t mention it.
Andrew,
Thank you for your extended comments to me this morning.
Unfortunately, they do not read easily to me on this my phone.
I’d also say that as a former solicitor, this has come more than a decade too kate for me to follow through if I was so minded, as I no longer have access to law libraries.
I’d be wary of citation of cases without knowing the whole report.
But what I will say is that at the outset you tether the arguments to legal “opinion”. Legal opinion may be sought which does not form law; legal opinion ( obiter dictum) may be given in a legal case which does not form part of the case law precedent ( ratio descedendi).
But I would ask of the authorities cited, what are the main canons of construction ( interpretation) employed?
And key questions are what are the main purposes of declarations/ vows/ oaths/assents?
In any tribunal, in any of the professions?
None of them I’d suggest is to be reduced to a matter of subjective personal conscience, which may be seared and self-serving. Objective or outside confidence, reliability, trust, integrity, competence in a system is also at stake.
There was a recent cartoon in the Times
newspaper about Prince Harry taking an oath in his current court litigation which it is suggested is on point in this discussion.
And while Philip seeks a discussion with Ian about the Fall/ original sin, it would proceed on the basis of agreement on what the Bible is.
Such a discussion within the CoE is a none starter if, from the outset, they, either of them, set aside the 39 Articles on the question of scripture, let alone any agreed doctrine that has been formulated from its pages.
Geoff thank you. I agree with much of that you say. The relevant documents about the articles are:
1. the report of the 1968 commission on Doctrine appointed by the then Archbishop and undertaken on behalf of the Church Assembly
2. The debate at the Lambeth Conferecne in 1968 about the report of that commission. (Lambeth conference resolutions would be advisory but for interest the report was endorsed with about 30 out of the 600 bishops present against or abstaining)
3. The papers related to the 1975 debate in General Synod concerning the change of wording to the Preface to the declarations and oaths.
4. Presumably the Ecclesiastical committee of Parliament/Hansard would have a record of the debate and resolution from Synod because a change to the wording of the Preface would be a matter of law.
5. To Proclaim Afresh which is a document recently published by the CofE Faith and Order Commission about the oaths and declarations which has some further history of the matter concerning these oaths and declarations. Available here https://www.churchofengland.org/sites/default/files/2022-06/PROCLAIMtextWEB.pdf
Geoff thank you. I agree with much of that you say.
In that case I’m sure you wouldn’t mind answering his key question: what is the main purpose of the clergy declaration?
The To Proclaim Afresh document answers that question very thoroughly and that’s why I used it in my answer to Geoff. I am sure he will peruse it
The To Proclaim Afresh document answers that question very thoroughly and that’s why I used it in my answer to Geoff.
You mean you are unable to answer the question concisely in your own words?
You must not understand it then.
Giant steps are what you take……walking on the moon…
Dear Geoff;
Meaningful discussion on any Christian theological issue must essentially be focused on the Bible itself, as the sole, infallible source of authority for Christian faith and practice. This means that in principle, all humanly constructed, post-New Testament, ecclesiastical statements of faith are revisable in the light of further, genuine advances in biblical research.
Hopefully, the essential elements of Ian’s opinions regarding the consequences of Adamic sin, will be derived via direct reference to the Bible, per se – and not necessarily derived via direct reference to any sixteenth century, theological documents.
The Church of England does not have a monopoly on serious bible study; and the ‘Thirty -nine Articles of Religion’ do not have a monopoly upon biblical Truth.
God bless you, Geoff.
Pellegino,
You appear to have missed something significant here. This is a CoE site, and a lot of what has passed in the comments relates to that.
While I certainly accept sola scriptura ( as one of the reformed solas) a key question in the discussion with Andrew is what he, thinks/ believes what sripture is and it is certainly not sola scriptura as he has set out in comments well before started commenting here.
Is sola scriptura a doctrine found only in the pages of scripture? Or something you have been taught?
I also need reliable guides and teachers. You are not one of them, thanks.
Dear Geoff;
Drink plenty of fluids, Geoff, because its going to be very warm (Hot sweet tea ?)
Thanks, for your comments.
In reply :
(1). I don’t anything about Andrew (Godsall) because I’ve not been following his articles presented on Ian’s site.
(2). I’ve noticed that there are quite a few commentators on this site who love Jesus and love the Bible, but who are not ‘Anglicans’, and yet, God willing, are members of a more important body called the ‘Ecclesia Invisibilis’.
(3). I’ve never been taught to adopt the principle of ‘sola scriptura’. A lot of denominations (including Anglicanism) do not operate by ‘sola scriptura’. I’ve taken a personal decision to basically use the principle of ‘sola scriptura’ because, (a). My main interest is in First century Christianity, and the original Apostolic Kerygma; and, (b). It is Scriptural; cf. 1 Tim, 3:16-17; Matt. 15:1-9; Acts 17:11; 1 Cor. 4:6.
(4). Our most reliable guide and teacher is the Messianic lord Jesus, Himself. What Jesus says, I believe – including John 17:3, and John 20:17. I love Jesus (Yeshua).
Thank Yahweh Father God for His Son and Messiah, Yeshua ! (Psalm 2:2 (NJB) ; Rev. 11:15-18).
How do we decide what’s in and what’s out of the Bible?
How do we decide what’s in and what’s out of the Bible?
Well if you’re in the Church of England, article 6.
AJ Bell –
Article six seems to claim that the spiritual authority of the individual books of the Christian biblical canon were never in doubt in the Church. This suggests that the individual biblical books were always self-authenticating, under the influence of God’s holy Spirit.
What do you, think, AJ ?
It suggests no such thing. The Biblical canon wasn’t in doubt from the Council of Rome in 382 until Martin Luther came along in 1534, and started dismissing books like 1 and 2 Maccabees, Judith etc..
Dear AJ;
I think your reading of Article Six relies heavily upon eisegesis, not exegesis, because what you say is certainly not in the text. 🙂
Thanks AJ Bell, and that’s absolutely correct. Anglicans accept the apocrypha and Article 6 is simply another example of one of the Articles that is anti Roman in its formulation. CofE members are not obliged to subscribe to all of the articles and this has been clear since 1968.
HARK The sounding of the one note flute. Is it possible that he some kind of Anglican Dignitary? Fully agree Geoff June 11, 2023 at 1:42 pm.
His focus seems to be on 1st.centuary church praxis, Ergo the Church has not grown,ergo a discusion on Anglican praxes has no relevance for him. He dismisses any formulation of creeds that confine Arians philosophy to antiquity. I feel his time may be better spent knocking on other doors or where he might have his own kind of Gnostic fellowship.
Are you brushing up on the Epistle to the Romans chapters one to eight, and the Epistle to the Ephesians, chapter two, Alan ?
I think these chapters will feature quite prominently in any future discussions on biblical anthropology. I think Phil, has got himself all prepared.
Take it easy in the heat, Alan. Take plenty of fluids. God bless you.
Many are focused on the Church and it’s praxis, of which many mount attacks . However we note that the glorified God to John in the Revelation while noting the several failures of most Churches tells them to repent or their candlestick will be removed. But then places emphasis on the individual who overcomes. who then are the Churchmen and who are then the Overcomers ? If the church does not repent and fades from the scene what about the Overcomers? Churches rise and decline even to apostasy and the church often has failed and declined. However we forget the Resurrection Power of God who resurrects the Church through an or some Overcomers.
Your comments, Alan, instantly remind me of Revelation 3:5 :
“He who overcomes will, like them, be dressed in white. I will never blot out his name from the book of life, but will acknowledge his name before My Father and His angels.”
The Father, of course, is always the God of Jesus (cf. Rev. 1:6; Rev. 3:2; Rev. 3:12; Also see, Romans 15:6; 2 Cor. 1:3; Eph. 1:3; 1 Peter 1:3; where the Father is “the God and Father of our lord Jesus Christ”). Naturally, all this is a direct consequence of the lord Jesus’ own plain words in John 17:3, and in John 20:17.
God bless you, Alan. It’s cooler today, here (so far).
The church in the Old Testament often spent long years in the wilderness and God does send “a famine of hearing [ obeying] the Word of God”from time to time. Thus it is true and follows the same trajectory that the later Church spends time[s] in the wilderness where there is great declension.
However God does have his Overcomers. Individuals who turn the tide to great effect and a numerous following wherein God has said “the people shall be willing in the day of thy Power” Of course Satan realizes this and will attempt to mimic this through an individual”man of sin” which for a time will mimic the Overcomers
and draw many after him and killing the two overcomers of God.
Futher more, some here not content with fighting ancient battles are prepareing for futere battles already [June 11, 2023 at 11:51 pm ]
ROMANS 9 vs. 20 & 21 which references Isaiah Ch. 10. see especialy
ISAIAH 10:15 – 20
There is no Church in the Hebrew Bible.
One local church leader has said that there has been and increase in tge number of people attending compared to pre-covid. And the singing has been noticeablebly heartier!
A Song of Ascents –
Psalm 127:1
Unless the LORD builds the house the labours build in vain. Unless the LORD watches over the City the guards/watchmen/ wakemen stand watch in vain.
( Interestingly, that second part is prominently written on the old town hall in Ripon, market place N Yorks. How times have changed!)
Yes – but had they also developed a great thirst for the pure, unadulterated Word of God, Geoff ?
(i.e. ‘Sola Scriptura’).
God bless you, Geoff. Thankfully, it seems a little cooler, today.
The invisible church just became more visible!
You have no way of knowing. Certainly not by your sole and scripturally undefined test which is, scripturally, no test at all.
Is the invisible church a a cult of individualist, rogue elephants?
Dear Geoffrey;
I want you to use your mind (Gk. dianoia) in answering this question, and not your emotions :
Would you call anyone who believes Jesus’ plain simple words in John 17:1-3, that the FATHER is ” the ONLY TRUE GOD ”
‘a rogue elephant’ ?
You first, as you ignore the first part of my comment which has nothing to do with emotions.
Your avoidances are telling. As is your reaction, response, that is only to a question elephantile rougues, the last sentence. Feeling the heat?
Tell you what, please honour me by not reading
any comment I may make and I’ll reciprocate.
BTW the whole Gospel of John bears witness to Jesus as God the Son incarnate, co -equal, difference without a distinction, starting plainly with chapter 1, including all of the I Am’s of Jesus, which I’ve set out at some length in a previous comment.
You read it through your monocle of presumption. Evidence, that you are not a reliable guide, teacher, to me.
Every blessing in the Name of God the Father, Name of God the Son and Name of God the Holy Spirit.
Yours in Christ,
Geoff
Dearest Geoff;
You mean, you’re not going to break a long standing habit, and give any of your own opinions regarding John 17:1-3 ? Amazing !
As for your other secondary point, Geoff, it is amply covered by 1 Cor. 4:3-5. Thus, as a consequence, we cannot arrogate to ourselves Divine prerogatives, nor go beyond explicit Scripture in the condemn of other people.
Furthermore, the Gospel of John was written to demonstrate that Jesus is the Son of God, and the Messiah (John 20:31) – which John amply reiterates in his First Epistle (See 1 John 3:23; 4:15; 5:1; 5:5; 5:10; 5:11).
Finally, the terms ‘God the Holy Spirit’ and ‘God the Son’ never occur in Scripture. Neither, does the Apostle mention the holy Spirit in any of his introductory greeting formula’s, which would be the case if he had thought the holy Spirit was a divine hypostasis (e.g. see Romans 1:7; 1 Cor. 1:3; 2 Cor. 1:2; Gal. 1:3; Eph. 1:2; Phil. 1:2; Col. 1:2; 1 Thess. 1:1; 2 Thess. 1:2; 1 Tim. 1:2; 2 Tim. 1:2; Titus 1:4; Philemon 1:3).
If you don’t want to follow the principle of Sola Scripture, then that’s up to you, Geoff, but I’m sticking with the Bible.
May the God and Father of our lord Jesus Christ, and Christ Jesus Himself, bless you, Geoff, and all yours.
Concerning the Holy Trinity, does anyone else see a type and shaddow in the Holy Scriptures?
You may recall the great battle of Carmel. Elijah the Overcomer
was to determine “Who is God? God Almighty or baal the god of chaos’. First of all he rebuilt the crumpled broken alter of God as the foundation of the tribes of Israel. then arranged the Sacrifice
Hence we see the alter and the sacrifice covered in Water,
Tit 3:5 Not by works of righteousness which we have done, but according to his mercy he saved us, by the washing of regeneration, and renewing of the Holy Ghost.
Fire came down from heaven[ Our God is a consuming fire]
Did it fall or did the whole combust spontaneously?
Showing the threefold work of God in one holy manifestation.
Elijah thought himself alone amongst the Overcomers but God had
5000 priests who had kept themselves from idols [ false representations of God] who God protected and nourished even as Elijah. God had prepared the follow up for the day of His Resurrection Power.
The relevant verse, ALAN is :
1 Kings 18:21, which reads in the New Jerusalem Bible (which uses the Divine Name ‘Yahweh’)
“If Yahweh is God, follow Him, if Baal, follow him.”
‘Yahweh’, is almost universally thought to be the original pronunciation of the Divine Name of God, which is represented by the Tetragrammaton (occuring nearly 7,000 times in the . Hebrew text), and is transliterated into English as ‘YHVH’.
This is what you need to know, Alan :
1. The Jews only have one God. (See Deut. 6:4; Mark 12:28-34, in the NJB).
2. The one God of the Jews has a personal name – ‘Yahweh’ (from which the term ‘Hallelu – Yah’ = ‘Praise Yah[weh]’, derives (cf. Rev. 19:1; 3; 4; 6).
2. The one God of the Jews (i.e. Yahweh) is the Father (See NJB; John 8:41; 54; Isaiah 63:16; 64:8; cf. Mal. 2:10).
3. The only one True God for Jesus, and for us, is also, the Father (See Jesus’ words in John 20:17 and John 17:1-3).
4. Only the Father in the Hebrew Scriptures is “EL SHADDAI” (i.e. ‘God Almighty’), Who is also called ‘Yahweh’ (See NJB; Exodus 6:3).
5. ‘EL SHADDAI’ in the Hebrew text of Exodus 6:3 is translated as ‘ho Pantokrator ‘ [‘the Almighty’] in the Greek version of the Jewish Scriptures, called the Septuagint.
6. ” Pantokrator’ [the ‘Almighy’] also occurs in the New Testament, and in every case, it is always a reference to the Father, alone (See 2 Cor. 6:18; Rev. 21:22; Rev. 4:8; Rev. 19:15; Rev. 19:6; Rev. 16:14; Rev. 16:7; Rev. 11:17; Rev. 1:8; Rev. 15:3.)
7. As our lord Jesus Christ Himself, said that ‘the ONLY TRUE GOD’ is the FATHER (see John 17:1-3; cf. John 20:17), it is not surprising that:
“The Oxford Companion to the Bible” (Oxford University Press, 1993) page 782, states :
” Because the Trinity is such an important part of later Christian doctrine, it is striking that the term does not appear in the New Testament. Likewise, the developed concept of three co-equal partners in the Godhead found in later creedal formulations, cannot be clearly detected within the confines of the canon.”
Please use your mind (Gk. dianoigo), Alan, and look at the Scriptures
(The standard transliteration of The Name is ‘YHWH’. The use of W for the 6th letter of the Hebrew Alphabet comes from the German sound for that letter.)
I suggest that you view that there is an “almost universal” view that the Name is pronounced as ‘Yahweh’, this is somewhat exagerated. Wikipedia does state that there is “a strong scholarly consensus.” However, I’m not sure the basis of this is that secure. I am inclined to follow my tutor in Biblical Hebrew, who is a Jew. He says we don’t know how it was pronounced, and it was only spoken by the High Priest on the Day of Atonement.
The history of The Name not being spoken goes back a long way. That the LXX generally uses kurios suggests that this practice dates back to the 3rd century BC. Some Qumran documents replace the word with four dot. Later, the vowel points of the Masoretes indicate which of the replacement words are to be spoken (not always adonai).
In addition, we don’t have a clear idea of how Biblical Hebrew was pronounced, and, indeed, how that pronunciation might have changed with time. (Koine Greek pronunciation was changing from classical Greek in the 1st century AD, and continued to change).
There are some LXX manuscripts, and other Christian writings which use ΙΑΩ to represent The Name, but Greek orthography is probably not at representing many Hebrew words.
I am curious as to your insistence that we know how The Name was pronounced. The only group I know about which seems concerned about known the pronunciation are … the Jehovah’s Witnesses.
Dear David B ;
Thank you, for your comments, David.
In response :
(1). According to the JPS ‘Jewish Study Bible’ the Tetragrammaton in transliterated English form is ‘YHVH’, (‘yod-heh-vav-heh’), but in ancient times the ‘vav’ was pronounced as a ‘w’.
(2). The general claim that :
” There is almost universal consensus amongst relevant scholars, that God’s name was probably pronounced as ‘Yahweh'”,
seems to be endorsed by the authoritative “Encyclopaedia Judaica”, which states, under the general subject heading of “Names of God” :
” The true pronunciation of the name YHWH was never lost. Several early Greek writers of the Christian Church testify that the name was pronounced ‘Yahweh’. This is confirmed, at least for the vowel of the first syllable of the name, by the shorter form ‘Yah’ which is sometimes used in poetry (e.g. Exodus 15:2), and the ‘ – yahu’ or ‘- yah’ that serves as the final syllable in very many Hebrew names [e.g. Eliyahu]. ”
“Yah”, occurs some fifty times in the Old Testament; Twenty-six times alone, and twenty four times in the expression “Hallelu-Yah” (which also occurs four times in the New Testament, within Revelation, chapter 19).
(3). The scholar Joseph Augustine Fitzmyer states in his book “101 Questions and Answers on the Dead Sea Scrolls”, that early Jewish fragments of the Septuagint found amongst the ‘Dead Sea Scrolls’, did contain the Tetragrammaton surprisingly often. This is in some contrast with comparatively late Christian editions of the Septuagint.
(4). If the Tetragrammaton occurs in the Hebrew text over six thousand times, then it obviously has some important significance – as indeed, YHWH God Himself expressed in Exodus 3:15. YHWH represents a personal name, whilst the common substitution ‘Lord’/’LORD’, is merely a title – and a very confusing one at times. For example. in Psalm 110:1, the actual Hebrew text does NOT read (as in many English translations) :
” The LORD said to my Lord” ;
but : “Yahweh {YHWH} said to my lord (or ‘master’)”. [Hebrew : ‘adoni’ = ‘lord’ or ‘master’]
(See ‘The English Lexham Bible’ and ‘The Legacy Standard Bible)’.
Here, we can see clearly, that Yahweh {YHWH} God is being distinguished from ‘adoni’, which is a non-Deity title. This fact has important implications for early Christian Christology, as recorded in the book of Acts.
(5). It is highly unlikely that the groups of scholars behind Bible translations such as : The Jerusalem Bible; The Sacred Name Bible; The Legacy Standard Bible; The Lexham English Bible; The World English Bible; The New Jerusalem Bible; The Names of God Bible, et al, (who are all very keen to register God’s name as ‘Yahweh’) are some sort of … crypto-Jehovah’s Witnesses. Likewise, David, neither am I (nor ever have been).
Yahweh God, and His Son, Messiah Yeshua, bless you David B.
Yes Alan and Geoff, “please use your mind” . As you can see, Pellegrino now seems to be caught in two minds ! Dianoia has now become Dianoigo; the former referring to the mind per se, the latter to the exercise of the mind. Perhaps some day he will discover that there are other even more ‘minds’ in the NT. Paul ,for instance, favours ‘nous’.
But then Alan is encouraged to “look at the Scriptures”.Look at them – as Pellegrino does? Well “look” at his interpretation of verse 3, for example, and you will see that he only quotes the first part and ignores the reference to ‘and'(an important conjunction) and ,more significantly, he still cannot grasp the full import of *Son*.
It reminds me of a great one-liner by Groucho Marx : commenting on a paperback written by a fellow comedian (with whom he did not get on). He said, “From the time I picked the book up until the time I put it down I didn’t cease laughing. Some day I’ll read it!
Ah dear Pellegrino do “stick to the Bible”. Avoid such heretical nonsense as “The Oxford Companion” and then you will find that virtually every other contributor to this blog site will by now have discovered (with or without his/her ‘dianoia’ ?nous?) that, yes, ‘Trinity’ does *not* appear in the NT!
Thanks Colin for the heads-up. Well I never! Unthinkingly, I hadn’t realised that the Oxford Companion wasn’t part of the canon of scripture. Doh!
The point in the ‘The Oxford Companion to the Bible’ merely confirms Scripture, Alan – it doesn’t replace it.
Keep thinking; and God bless.
Dear Colin ( McCormack) ;
You are using your emotions sir, not your mind (dianoia : a term which Ian used), which looks as if it could do with some education, and ‘dianoigo’.
When you’re feeling better, Colin, try and compose any cogent, scriptural argument, and tell me where you think I may be wrong. You could start with John 17:1-3 if you want, and tell me if Jesus was right or wrong, to claim that the Father is the ‘Only true God’ ?
In the meantime, could you please desist from over-emotional ranting, and the employment of logical fallacies -including of course your ‘argumentum ad hominems’.
God bless you Colin. Take it easy.
Dear Colin;
John 17:3, in the NIV, where Jesus is talking of the Father :
” Now this is eternal life, that they may know you, the only true God, and Jesus Christ whom you have sent.”
Now, when you can, could you please tell us if Jesus is saying that the Father is the ‘only true God’, or not ?
We look forward to, hopefully, your calm, reasoned Scriptural response in due course.
God bless you, Colin.
Hello Alan,
Elijah foreshadows Jesus – the only One who overcomes.
Jesus is El Shaddai in flesh:
Not only on the Mount of Sermon; not only on the Mount of Trsnsfiguation; not only on the Mount of crucifixion; not only in the Resurrection; not only in his Ascension, but in his return. Victory in judgement in Him complete and replete over idolatry, demonic, satan, sin and rebellion, KING of KINGS, LORD of LORDS
https://www.christianity.com/wiki/god/what-is-the-meaning-of-the-name-el-shaddai.html
A Message to all serious Bible students :
The Messiah is God’s Son and King. Messiah gains all His authority from His God and Father ( Rev. 1:6; 2:26-27), Who delegates the Messiah to rule on His behalf. (See Psalm 110:1; 2:1-12; ; Rev. 12:10). The temporary Messianic Kingdom, will eventually be handed up by Messiah to His God and Father (1 Cor. 15: 24; John 20:17), to Whom Messiah Jesus will be fully subjected (1 Cor. 15: 27-28). God, Who is the Father (1 Cor. 8:6; John 17:3), will then rule directly, and supremely over all. (see 1 Cor. 15:23-28; 1 Cor. 15:24).
May our Father God, and His Son, the lord Messiah Jesus (cf. Psalm 110:1; NJB) , give you a deep love for the Divine Word, bless you all, in all ways.
Geoff
June 12, 2023 at 3:44 pm
Yes. I agree whole heartedly. our Lord Jesus Christ is the Overcomer. Elijah was an overcomer as well, by faith, and to him was given, a deathless life,and he was intrinsically involved on the mount of Transfiguration. I don’t know why Moses and he were there. However Jesus wanted a few desciples to witness the event.
Moses was an overcomer as Deuteronomy 34:12
The New International Version
12 For no one has ever shown the mighty power or performed the awesome deeds that Moses did in the sight of all Israel.
Christ’s redemptive sacrifice was the purpose for which Elijah had ministered, espescially on Carmel. where I asked the question was the miracle of defining “who is God” a revelation or a type of the working of the Trinity? which was a trigger for an Arian repeating his one now over familiar note,
It was just a question, of which no-one has posited a view. Oh well
so be it.
Hopefully, Alan, Colin will be telling you (and us) how to exactly go about interpreting John 17:3.
We can but hope.
God bless you, Alan.
P I already have; not to mention John 20: 28! However whilst spiritual myopia is something I like to tackle; spiritual amnesia is beyond my remit!
Good to see you back, Colin.
John 20:8 has to be interpreted against the background discussions of Thomas and Philip, with Jesus, in John 14:4-11. The Father (Who is the ONLY true God – John 17:3) spiritually indwelt His Son (cf. John 10:38; 14:10, 11) to such an extent, that to see Jesus, was to spiritually ‘see’ the Father. Thomas eventually realized this in John 20:20. Jesus expresses the Self-revelation, or the Logos, of the only one true God (YHWH = the Father); John 1:1.
If Jesus was a second, divine hypostasis, then Jesus could never have said that the Father is the ‘ONLY true God’, and John would have written that the purpose of his Gospel was inculcate faith in Jesus as the Messiah, and ‘God’, or, ‘God the Son’. But John doesn’t say this in John 20:31.
You cannot get away, Colin, from Jesus’ plain words in John 17:3.
Thanks Alan,
This could be pressed much further with allusions and the full sweep of echoes, patterns, types, symbols, antitype, across the whole sweep of scripture interpreting scripture with the employment of, as you will know, Biblical theology.
I’d say that the whole passage is redolent of the Trinity.
With fire a symbol of Holy Spirit, a symbol execution of Judgement of and by the the Father and of and by the Son, a symbol of the Refiners fire, God Himself refining and defining and identifying those who are his.
And the whole Triune aspect conflates into the great “I AM” Shekinah Glory Fire of Holiness: Three in One.
I’ve learned from Christian Biblical theologians, teachers, preachers down the years.
PrIse His Holy Name, Father Son Spirit.
And Alan, it is but the outworking and employment of sola scriptura – no hidden, undisclosed, outside, external, authority referencing- Oxford Companion, or any other- involved.
It brings out mind generated emotion, joy and doxology.
It makes me even to accede to an external biblical Christian summation, to a catechism; the chief purpose of man is to glorify God and enjoy him forever.
Amen.
A principle working towards the position of Sola Scripture would not rule out ongoing historical, lexical, and biblical research, but it attempts to give Scripture it’s proper due – which is not often done, in practice, when one is working with a principle of Prima Scriptura.
Note also, the ‘three-legged’ stool analogy of Anglicanism.
When He, Who was “the Truth” (John 14:6),
spoke the words of Truth (John 18:37),
in John 17:3,
Then the Truth of His words,
were Self-Evident.
Praise be to the God and Father of our lord Jesus Christ ! (1 Peter 1:3a).
A possible subject for a Ph.D. Thesis (?) :
” Denial, cognitive dissonance, and popular Trinitarian psychology concerning John 17:3. “
John 17 v21 Stay within the context of Scripture.
Ah yes Alan.
It’s called scoring an own goal and then moving the goal posts. Even calling out foul and refusing to be sent off for not playing by the rules when their, first in time, a priori disregard is whistled up.
It has been said in so many words by some of those who have sought to engage JW’s that it is easier to shake the the dust off your feet than to detatch an interloping JW from your coat tails, so deep are the tropes of indoctrination and the internal exercise of discipline for those amongst their number who diverge from their doctrine. A fiend came out of JW’s and revealed the methodology
of teaching, training which centred around learning by rote anf refuting the Trinity whiile claing that they are the only true christians.
Now all ducks may not be mallards, but ducks are ducks.
Sad really.
Thanks for your comments
And maybe, Alan, we miss the “Don’t feed the Ducks” sign. It encourages much noisy quacking and one last quack.
” Top Trinitarian Tips – For Handling Awkward Questions concerning John 17:3.”
1. Whatever you do, don’t make the mistake of trying to confront the question, head-on. This noble, brave, but ultimately misguided strategy is bound to end in tears. Rather, immediately attempt to deflect attention away from John 17:3, by the employment of some very useful ‘logical fallacies’. These include :
2. ‘Argumentum ad hominem’. Immediately attempt to attack the Questioner by casting doubt upon their intelligence, moral integrity, spiritual integrity, and motives.
3. Employ ‘Straw Man’ fallacies, at each and every opportunity. Try and attribute some belief(s) to the Questioner that he doesn’t actually hold – in order to make it much easier to attack him. Insinuate or claim that he is a member of some sect, or some little known denomination that is generally, up to no good.
4. Employ the fallacy of historical retrojection. Freely admit, if you want, that the current Western Church’s ‘Trinity’ notion was only officially finalized in the eleventh century, but claim that these very same beliefs were also held by all Christians in the First century. Therefore, whatever John 17:3 plainly says must somehow fit with the ‘Trinity’ concept – although how this is done is probably completely beyond Trinitarian, human reasoning to comprehend.
5. Use ‘Argumentum ad Populum’. Claim that most Christians are perplexed Trinitarians of some sort, and that therefore the Trinity idea must be right !
Finally and generally speaking, just try to completely ignore awkward questions on John 17:3, and always make every effort to deflect attention away from them. 🙂
Dear Alan;
The unity that Jesus is talking about in John 17:21-22 is a unity of spiritual harmony, purpose, and will. This is obvious. Believers are to be ‘one’, just as the God and His Son, are ‘one’. Believers being ‘one’ with God, doesn’t make them into ‘God’. When Paul prays that believers might be :
” filled with all the fulness of God” (Eph. 3:19; KJV),
this doesn’t make any of the believers, ‘God’.
With respect to Jesus – it is quite evident that the only True God (Who is the Father; John 17:3) spiritually indwelt His Son (John 10:38; 14:10,11), and that the Son always lived in the Father’s spiritual presence (John 8:29). But this doesn’t contradict and negate Jesus’ plain words in John 17:3, that the FATHER is :
” the ONLY true God”.
The Son expresses the ‘ONLY true God’, Who is the Father (John 17:3). If Jesus was a second divine hypostasis then He could never have said the words in John 17:3; and John would have written that the purpose of his Gospel is to inculcate faith in Christ Jesus as ‘God’, or ‘God the Son’, but John never says this, in John 20:31. The term ‘Son of God’ is clearly different from the term ‘God’ – as Jesus Himself, acknowledged in John 10:33-36.
You cannot escape the plain words of Jesus in John 17:3, Alan, nor attempt to make Jesus untruthful and contradictory.
Geoff
June 13, 2023 at 2:44 pm
AH! Yes,Sage words indeed, DON’T FEED THE DUCKS
I would have a sign saying DON’T MENTION THE “T” WORD
We must learn to appreciatehis contributions though
He is a useful…..Tool. He has led us into interesting enquiries and confirmed us in our beliefs, He has sharpened our swords for the next one we meet. Now were we?
Alan – someone has put up an article on “Top Trinitarian Tips for Handling John 17:3.”
Are you somehow responsible for that, Alan ? – or was it, Geoff ?
🙂
Indeed Alan.
It (Pellegrino) is a fertiliser for fruit of the Spirit – particularly patience and grace, in Old Testament terms, longsuffering. We’ve been given a glimpse into the longsuffering of God with….us all.
Amen, Geoff.
We’re saved by Grace, Geoff, nor Religion.
(Typo Correction) :
Amen, Geoff.
We’re saved by Grace, Geoff, not religion.
Anti Trinity proof texts refuted here – (though far from new, it is a good reminder of times spent with friend- a former JW):
https://www.bible.ca/trinity/trinity-texts-john17-3.htm
Brill.
Steve – You’re back !
Can you see how much trouble you’ve caused by kicking off these whole thread debates ? 🙂 😉
Dear Steve :
You can’t have read the article properly.
See my analytical conclusions to Geoff.
Pellegrino – I read the article properly – and I liked it (and agree with it). I didn’t see any serious rebuttal from you – only some diaroia (I mean dianoia).
So you MUST believe, Jock, that Jesus WASN’T telling the strict Truth, because you believe that the Father is NOT literally ‘the ONLY true God’ (cf. John 17:3). The Greek word for ‘ONLY’ in John 17:3 is ‘monon’ which means ‘exclusively’ or ‘only’, in all it’s occurrences within the Gospel of John.
If a new friend came to your abode and you introduced them to your ‘ONLY true wife’, would your friend be much surprised if he later discovered two other women in your abode, each of whom were claiming to be your ‘ONLY true wife’ ?
GEOFF :
If you agree with the nameless article which you have provided a link to, then you are saying that the words Jesus uttered in John 17:3 are NOT TRUE, because Jesus is also ‘the only true God’, and that therefore, as a consequence of Jesus’ untruths, he is a liar. The illogical excuse which is offered for Jesus’ untruth (i.e. lies) is that Jesus was so humble, that he did not want to attract attention to himself as also being ‘the only true God’ . But if this is so, then, as the holy Spirit is also (supposedly) ‘the only true God’, Jesus should still have said in John 17:3 :
” You (the Father) and the holy Spirit, are the only true God’.
However, this is ungrammatical and semantic nonsense (both in English and Greek), as the Greek ‘monon’ [‘only’], in the context of both John 17:3, and the Old Testament (where ‘Yahweh Father God is always a unitary, singular Person), means : “alone, without a companion”.
Therefore, the nameless article :
1. Blasphemously accuses Jesus of telling untruths (lies).
2. Indulges in illogical inconsistencies.
3. Contradicts basic lexical definitions.
4. Accuses Jesus of being a sinner.
Hello Pellegrino,
Sleepless night, was it? Shouting my name on this site in the early hours won’t help. I’ve asked you before to stop shouting, please.
In honour of your dishour of me, by reading the comments I make, this comment is only in response to your point about the nameless article (and NB. the plethora of JW text and teaching is nameless, anonymous). I have no intention of responding to the rest of your comment.:
1 You have a name but are otherwise anonymous as are a lot of us here.
2 You have one obsessive purpose, mission, on this site- to deny and dispute the Triune God of Christianity.
3 You set your own rules of engagenment, and when they have been followed, you cry foul because they reveal the Trinity from first to last , in the whole canon of scripture following Christian biblical theology of redemptive history – which it seems you have no answer to and has taken you by surprise, as you pin, reduce your anguished pleadings to your own JW’s hermeneutic of one text.
4 There is plenty more on the intenet to biblically oppose and reject JW teaching. Only one was linked. I bought a book for my former JW friend.
5 It was helpful that you set out a trained method of criteria to be employed to try to close down perfectly legitimate questioning, while at the same time employing any authority references which superfically seem to be supportive on a platform that doesn’t truly admit of detailed delving in the comments section.
5 I ask that your obsessive trolling cease.
6 But thank you for strengthening my understanding, belief and commitment to (and heart and mind, joyous, in Spirit and in Truth, worship of) our, the Glorious Triune God of Christianity.
Dear Alan,
Please see my response to Jock.
God bless you, Alan 🙂
And yet, somehow, I think trolling could be matterless to a JW, doesn’t count, as a JW will continue to get JW organizational plaudits, brownie points, for involvement and continued involvement on this site, as long as it lasts, classed and applauded as it will be, as “doing, going out to, the work,” a modern equivalent to going out to work at door knocking…until the door is closed.
And yet it is a far cry from street corner Watchtower and New World Translations displays, where witnesses no longer approach uninvited.
Maybe there is a hierarchical change of tack.
Thank you so much,
for your latest Straw man fallacy.
And it all so counter-productive, ending in a trained indoctrinated blocking technique of uncorroborated, unevidenced, mere assertion.
Here is another Biblical counter to JW’s refusal to acceptpt the deity of Jesus.
https://www.reformation21.org/blog/a-simple-way-to-speak-to-jehovahs-witnesses
And yet another counter attributed:
https://www.bethinking.org/jehovahs-witnesses/what-to-say-to-jehovahs-witnesses/2-about-jws
Dear Geoff;
I may not always agree with you, but I love you, through the enabling power of God our Father, and, of His Son, the lord Jesus Christ (and goes for Alan, et al, as well).
God bless you, Geoff.
Pellegrino Geoff 13, 2023 at 5:26 pm June 13, 2023 at 3:30 pm
Thanks Geoff, He claims we are using psycological mind game
techniques.
Quite sure that your excellent reference to https://www.bible.ca/trinity/trinity-texts-john17-3.htm will keep him busy for a while, plus if he is not to tired — http://www.therealpresence.org/archives/Christology/Christology_022.htm
If he cannot be bothered, they will well inform those who want to know what Truth means.
Geoff
June 13, 2023 at 5:26 pm your excellent reference to see
https://www.bible.ca/trinity/trinity-texts-john17-3.htm on
on John 3 v 17. Could keep him busy for a while.
I would heartily recommend along with that, the precursors of 3rd century Mr.Arian @ http://www.therealpresence.org/archives/Christology/Christology_022.htm
I think they will lay a few things to rest for a while.
Even if he can’t be bothered to peruse them, they are very useful to those of us on here who seek Truth and Facts
Using my mind, what little I have…
In the beginning God said “let us”.
As truth is revealed in scripture we find God rested on the sabbath .
Jesus fulfilled the sabbath by resting in death,taking our sins with him and completing the work the Father gave Him.
This strange work of God, being in time and outside of creation , beyond time yet imanent , produces, what we see as a paradox.
Ultimately though we understand that when Jesus returns the work will be done .
The Messiah, the Groom, will be King of Kings. We will be in Him and He will be in the Father.
Then Pellegrino, and only then, will what you say become absolutely and irrevocably true. But even then God will not be an objective truth because we will be in Him.
The concept of the trinity is therefore what I feel in this period of ‘now and not yet’.
I know you won’t accept what I say in good grace. I leave it there. It’s more than just words for me.
Imagine a wedding in progress. The bride is waiting for the groom. Everyone knows their place, their connection, their pedigree . Everyone knows who they are and why they have been invited. The talk is all about the now and yet to come.
It seems only a child would point out that the Father is the real power, the most important person worth of respect. And be irritated that the ceremony does not give due deference to the One next to the bride.
It seems to me you have no invitation to be here at all. Quiet please. The music has started.
Thank you, dear Steve, for gentle comments. God bless you, sir.
I may not always fully agree, at all times, with your comments, Steve, but I can assure you
that they are always accepted in very good grace. I respect the fact that everyone is entitled
to their own opinions – whether they be fully informed, or not. I generally love everybody,
Steve, – since I’ve become a Christian.
Please see my comments to Jock. Please feel free to chip in, if you want. 🙂 😉
The Word is full of allusion, metaphor etc, etc.
Try employing some to entertain us. A parable or two.
Paint a picture from your perspective we can get into.
Suzannah has offered a colourful, personal watercolour. It has depth. I identify with it. Your song seems very reminicent of a slave girl form Acts:
true up to a point but loud, repetitive and distracting.
Ask God to send you the Holy Spirit.
Keep painting, Steve.
Keep joyful (Gal. 5:22-23).
Steve – God willing, I’m especially looking forward to the 1 Cor. 15:28 phenomenon.
Yes, exactly. But not yet. You look forward to it.
and
“God was in Christ, reconciling the world to Himself.”
Remember, the Spirit ‘remained’ on Jesus at his baptism.
So, as I see it, The Spirit of God was in Christ…
The Messiah,= The Anointed = Jesus and the Holy Spirit.
Now, after Pentecost, we have Jesus and the Father in heaven; us and the Holy Spirit on earth.
I’m afraid these threads are becoming unnavigable because so many posts end up debating the Trinity.
On the subject itself, my committed Christian faith (what gets called ‘being born again’) was a 24-hour sequence of repentance/tears >> car crash >> encounter with Jesus… for the first time realising that God could be encountered in a personal way, not just as some mystical force.
No-one at that stage had explained the gospel to me, and how it worked. The encounter was deeply emotional and overwhelming. That was the ‘conversion’ allocated to me. But God calls people in a variety of ways.
A friend of mine explained their own ‘conversion’ had no single moment. He likened it to walking across the moors between England and Scotland. He could not say exactly when he entered Scotland, but over time it became clear to him that he was there.
I think it’s pretty obvious that we are called by God to open our hearts and minds, and that involves both cerebral/logical understanding… and opening of our feelings. And of course, it doesn’t end there. We are being drawn into relationship, and repeatedly being invited to open our hearts to the Love of God, and our minds to the Will of God, and our consciences to the compassionate needs of people we encounter or hear about (such as tragically the families of the people attacked in Nottingham yesterday – my condolences both to them and to clergy like Ian as the communities there try to be ‘there’ for friends, fellow students, neighbours, colleagues, family).
There is no such thing as unemotional Christianity. We are often resistant to opening our hearts to the Love of God, and the compassionate feeling involved in our relationship with God. But there is also a need for balance (to avoid self-indulgent emotionalism) and to recognise the practicalities of being Christian in a world with pitiful needs. Science, objectivity, logic, responsibility… they are also invaluable aspects of faith, that draw on the mind.
For me, the personal relationship with Jesus Christ is rooted in emotion and feeling… I open emotionally to love because I learn to trust that that love is so real… but I do realise that God works with different people with different temperaments in different ways.
My mind got fused for a moment, and I messed up the order.
I meant (and I’ll refine it slightly):
read John chapter 1 >> got drunk and car ended upside down in a river >> repentance and tears >> personal encounter with Jesus, and knew He was God.
It was an emotional roller coaster… ‘the light shines on in the darkness’ those words has haunted me for days… meanwhile a drug pusher was grooming me to try hard drugs… then an evening of drunkenness… thick fog and darkness down a lonely lane… lights everywhere as the car span out of control… upside down under water and total darkness… escape… then next day tears like I hadn’t cried since childhood… presence, encounter, conversion experience.
I later phoned up a local minister and said, “I think I’ve just become a Christian. What do I do?” So he saw me and went through the Bible, explaining the gospel to me.
I guess that was the ‘mind’ bit. But the conversion encounter itself was a meeting with Jesus Christ, and knowing right off that He was God. And the deeply emotional nature of that encounter.
Each day we are being called by God, to open both hearts and minds. Opening our hearts to the tender, powerful love of God.
And then… encounter… and peace.
Thanks for sharing Susannah.
It’s a great testimony Susannah.
There was a time when expression being ” slain in the Spirit” was employed to describe and encounter with God, more specifically the Holy Spirit, even in Co E churches.
There’s a whole new topic, but I’ll mention one aspect: being raised to a new life, a new life seeking and following the Will of God which you mentioned, a life that seeks not to dishonour God by traducing his revealed Will, revealed in his Holy Word, Holy Bible.
Otherwise, how do you know his Will?
And the answer to your personal question of me is, Yes.
But, as I said, it is a whole new topic, which I anticipate Ian will be reluctant to open up, even if it is, on point, of the article. And, as it was for you, there was a sequences of events, which doesn’t neatly fall into a theologians, order of salvation.
I believe people can be slain in the Spirit. I’ve seen it happen, even in prison. There are few things I find more moving than men who have done bad things – great giants, some of them – being felled like mighty oaks and having their lives turned wrong.
The thing is: do we believe in a supernatural God or don’t we. I believe supernatural things do happen. Of course, some of the deepest works of the Spirit take place within a person’s heart. But I also believe in visions, in dreams, in prophecy, in healings, in tongues being real, in levitation, in the rushing wind of the Spirit. I believe in these things. I don’t think they were just in the past.
And when they happen, they can be overwhelming. They are beyond just our reason. In a way they are ‘other’ than us. They are the workings of the sovereign God. We don’t even get to choose them.
What we do get to choose is whether to seek God’s Will, and whether to pray, and wait on God, and love God with our heart and soul. Of course, I know what you were referencing about the Will and the Word, and thank you for not de-railing things.
But to stay on topic, I don’t think relationship with Jesus is primarily academic. It’s a religion of the heart. It has to involve feelings. It has to accommodate the possibility of the supernatural. In some churches, I feel God seems so boxed up and hemmed in (of course, that’s never really possible, but it can feel like that). We have been created with emotions. In the Church of England people are often very guarded about feelings and emotions, and everything seems controlled by a social politeness. But we are made to feel. And our God isn’t just ‘niceness’. Our God is wild and other than any of us. And so much of God is numinous and unknown. But, like those prisoners I mentioned, and in my experience and from what I’ve read yours too, we can know Jesus.
In everything I’ve said above, I recognise that emotions can overheat and get out of balance… but we can go too far the other way as well. There is also a risk that supernatural signs of God, instead of being signposts to Jesus, can become distractions. That’s why I warn against going looking for the supernatural. If it happens, it happens, so we are moved to look for God. The supernatural also needs maturity and care in spiritual warfare, because we exist in a world where evil is real. At that point we most certainly need quiet spirit and sound minds. At that point of unwelcome encounter, it’s that verse… not fear, but power, and love, and a sound mind.
Mostly, I think the Christian journey is about trust and endurance. The mundane duties of daily life. Very ordinary things. Duty can make a person’s life feel dry. We need the streams of living water – the Holy Spirit. We need to know God’s love ourselves, we need to feel it – really feel it.
Geoff, you wrote “And the answer to your personal question of me is, Yes.”
I’m not sure I asked you a question?
But I am sure you are a son of God.
Ugh typo: “lives turned round” not “lives turned wrong”
I wish there was an edit button!
It was linked to Slain in the Spirit, Susannah.
Some was real, some faked in meetings at the time.
But there is much more to a personal testimony of conversion at 47 as an unchurched adult.
My dad was dying in hospital, all medication withdrawn. There was a Gideon’s NT and Psalms in the bedside table. I read most of the references and came to John’s Gospel and the resurrection encounter of Jesus with Peter and John and it was as if Jesus were saying to me follow me.
It was 2am. I was on one side of his bed, my wife on the other, in a single bed unit at the top of a Nightingale ward. I couldn’t stand by dads rasping discomfort any more, got off the chair, walked to the end of bed, saying a prayer to a God I was sure existed. “God, I know my dad has not been perfect, but if you think he’s suffered enough, would you please deliver him up.” I didn’t even know what I was asking, it was as if, in hindsight, it was God given. But by the time I got to the end of the bed, Dad was sitting upright, radiant, with a beaming smile. Dad, you look wonderful, I said. Yes, he replied. Do you feel wonderful? Yes, he said. Do you want them to give you something to make you more comfortable? Yes, he said. Previously he’d refused all medication, couldn’t speak as he had two strokes.
I didn’t know what was happening, got the nurse from the night station. No, Dad wasn’t dying and he repeated the same thing to the nurse.
I was shattered, went to the stair -well. I was jealous of Dad, not of him dying, but he had what I’d been searching for all my life: Peace. But did I have to wait till just before I died? What if there was no one there to pray for me? What if I got run over by a bus?
The CoE minister who carried out the funeral service suggested an Alpha Course.
Before the Holy Spirit away day, at home alone, in the bathroom, getting ready for bed, it seemed as though I was slain in the Spirit, slumped to the floor, not influenced by any crowd, prayed in deep repentance and asked Holy Spirit to come, take over my life. He came in, moving me from tears to deep, deep peace as if being poured in. I couldn’t rise, crawled to the bed, hauled myself onto it, lay on it zonked out. What’s happened, my wife asked.? As I explained, she knew what had happened (as she’d been to an Assemblies of God as a teen – and Methodist Sunday school, and a CoE school) and she accepted when I said I now had to put God first in my life. She also came to faith on the course. A friend from the AoG said that when my wife attended she had accepted the teaching, but there had not been a heart and mind, born again, life transformation.
It is also notable that around that time that people were falling under the Spirit at the altar rail at communion services in the local CoE church.
There is a risk here, a risk that experience can become an idol, that we desire things of God, such as healing, not God Himself.
From, perhaps an unusual source, John Piper, slightly changes the Shorter Westminster Catechism Q7A 1 ; the chief purpose of “man” is to glorify God By enjoying him forever. It is unusual, as Piper is known for the use of his mind in preaching /teaching. But not unusual as a mainspring of his ministry is pressing his Christian Biblical theology into a mould of his terminology, Christian Hedonism. And it is not what first impression might bring to mind.
Religious Affections by Jonathan Edwards, no stranger to Spiritual experience and revivals, is worth a look, though the language is of its time and it may not be easy going.
Susannah, if there were an edit feature here, I’d be on it all the time with corrections. And if it were available for use of others on my comments, I’d not be here at all, redacted out.
Yours in Christ,
Geoff
Geoff,
Thank you so much for sharing a wonderful and very personal testimony and making yourself vulnerable.
Everything about your account says to me that your father’s healing was real, and what you witnessed was God’s miraculous intervention.
Equally moving is the account of how you and your wife came to living faith in Jesus Christ. I believe God cares so much for us in this world that at times that leads to supernatural intervention.
I think what you witnessed with your father, in my own view, was a miracle. I don’t say that lightly because I don’t believe miracles like that happen all the time. Far from it, as a nurse I have had to accompany many people on their final journey, and sometimes I have prayed and prayed for them, but turned out it was their time. But… I remember one case on a critical care ward where I was working. The patient concerned was a young woman who had had a double lung transplant. She got weaker and weaker, until the hospital decided to phone the husband, and we were all told too, that she might die that night.
There were a number of Christian staff on the ward and we had been praying for her. I’m not saying my own prayers were involved, because as I said, I had prayed for others who went on to die.
But when I came onto shift the next morning there was a huddle of doctors and nurses outside her side-room. Her husband hadn’t arrived yet. My first thought was oh dear, she must have died. She’d been with us for at least 8 weeks and you grow attached to your patients. So I went up to the team, and said ‘What’s the news?’ They said, “You better go in and see for yourself.” So I did.
She was sat up on the side of her bed, disconnected from her various devices, watching television. I couldn’t believe what I saw. Of course, you then think, well is this some temporary revival but you fear it will be temporary. It wasn’t. She was discharged a few weeks later, and went home to live her life.
So, equally, from everything you have told in truth, I believe your father was miraculously healed. And it makes sense in God’s plans for the witness the event provided for you in ways that changed your life… which is itself a testimony of how God seeks out people.
In a similar way, the Christian woman who witnessed to me just by driving by the cottage where I was staying, and the ‘presence’ she seemed to have in her, when she called in to see me… I think that was no small thing. Her witness I think was part of how God opened me to believe. She prepared the way.
I wonder how many people here came to faith in part because of witness of others, or through all kinds of interventions by God, because God saw and cared and wouldn’t let go?
Thank you again for sharing and for the reminder of how God saves, through events, through people, through courses, through our minds, through the Bible, and through our feelings.
When miraculous things do happen, it is not because we are anything special – often it may be the opposite – it’s because God loves us and in some cases I think maybe knows we need some extra witness, some extra help. Or simply sees a situation and has pity. What happened to your dad seems amazing, both in itself for your dad, but also for the impact on your life.
For which, all thanks to God.
Hello Susannah,
It was a supernatural intervention by God. If anyone would say otherwise, I’d say, don’t insult my intelligence. My wife said it was as if Dad had gained heaven.
And there was an independent nurse witness, who must have passed it on as the staff were insistent that I have the Gideon’s which I’d been reading openly.
It is a matter of deep humility, and in many ways incomprehension, why me/us ?, not pride.
And it was only after conversion that I came to fully recognise that the Bible is a supernatural Word of from God, a revelation of Himself, and on that ward it was truly living and active to me. Indeed, Christianity is supernatural it can not be anything else, God is supernatural, to create us for a relationship with him and the lengths to which he went is head shaking stunning.
Today in the car we heard a couple of songs from hot on the heals of those times which while they don’t dot all the i’s and cross all the t’s of doctrine (which do?) it still settled us into reminiscing, for those exciting past times, difficult though they were, in pressing external circumstance., The songs :
1 Above All, by Michael W Smith and
2 Behold the throne of God above
And at Dad’s funeral, All things bright and beautiful, in memory of him.
All of them engage heart and mind in different ways.
Sure it is different for everyone but no one is born a Christian and its not always spectacular, but everyone must have a testimony of a lightbulb(even if it is a gradual dimmer’
/brightenening -switch type moment, a CS Lewis, Surprised by Joy.
Looking back, both my wife and I realise what we have missed, that we see in our present church, and that is being raised in a life of faith with mam and dad. I think it may have been (notwithstanding outward appearances) and remains far too rare. Looking back, I couldn’t really say that I knew anyone who I could say was a Christian, student friends, professional colleagues. No one spoke about their faith, if they had any, didn’t attend church.
And maybe that is a main factor in that I just wanted to tell everyone the Good News, after my conversion. What took longer to come to terms with was the spontaneous apathy and indifference, and the subjective, relativity response “well if it works for you…”
Enough.
Thank you. ‘Above All’ stilled my heart just before bed. Amazing really. Being God, Jesus went all the way… took the fall… for each one of us personally. No turning back. Shedding life blood for each individual, given to each one of us… conscious of each one of us… urging us to accept the love, and to give ourselves back. To dare to share love. Real costly covenant, real love relationship. Trust, givenness, feelings beyond further words. Dear precious saviour.
Post as atJune 13, 2023 at 3:30 pm
No, not guilty,I don’t do psycobabble.
June 13, 2023 at 11:04 pm
I am intrigued. Your welcome of the esteemed DR.SR seems to imply that he is responible some how for input into these threads. is he perhaps a puppet master.?
Did you get around to reading YET
https://www.bible.ca/trinity/trinity-texts-john17-3.htm ?
OR http://www.therealpresence.org/archives/Christology/Christology_022.htm ?
Did I miss your reply on John 17 v, 21 not what you “think” it says
but the clear written statement of Jesus in the Holy Scriptures.
We all face God’s condemnation because of Original Sin and our personal sins. Romans 8:1 tells us that there is no condemnation for those in Christ Jesus. So a key crucial element in the atonement doctrine must be the removal of that condemnation by Christ bearing that condemnation in our place. If the doctrine of the Trinity is true, as I believe it is, then the Person who bore that condemnation, in the human nature he assumed in the womb of the Blessed Virgin, is True God. If, However the Trinity doctrine is not true, then the True God is not our Saviour in that key, crucial element.
Phil Almond
Dear Phil –
”God was in Christ, reconciling the world to Himself” (cf. 2 Cor. 5:21),
is a different theological proposition to saying :
“God was Christ, reconciling the world to Himself”.
For, the apostle Paul, who probably has most to say regarding biblical soteriology, God is always ‘the Father’. The title ‘lord’ ( cf. Psalm 110:1 ‘YHWH [Yahweh] said to my lord’ [lord = Hebrew ‘adoni’ = a non-Deity title]) was a way of distinguishing Jesus from God, not identifying Jesus with God. See “The Theology of the Apostle Paul”, by Anglican scholar James D.G. Dunn.
Pauline soteriology is not dependent upon a ‘Trinity’ doctrine.
Do you believe the doctrine of Penal Substitution and the doctrine that Christ assumed human nature in the womb of the Blessed Virgin?
Phil Almond
To Philip;
The sixteenth century, ‘penal substitutionary theory of the atonement’ depends significantly for it’s support upon certain translations of certain key words in Paul’s Epistles. More recent lexical research into the biblical languages now throughs doubt upon that theory.
That Jesus was a man, as Peter clearly states in Acts 2:22, is beyond dispute – as it is amply confirmed by Hebrews 2:14, and Hebrews 4:15.
God bless you, Philip.
Pellegrino
Please give details of your first paragraph and we can debate the issue, subject to Ian Paul’s approval.
I agree that Jesus was a man. But the issue is what did Jesus mean when he said, for instance, “For I came down from heaven, not to do mine own will, but the will of him that sent me.” (John 6:38) and what did John mean when he wrote ” And the Word became flesh and tabernacled among us…..” (John1:14)
Phil Almond
Susannah Clark
June 14, 2023 at 11:09 am
Hi Susannah
Great to hear your story and God doing such a great work of grace in your life. He certainly powerfully called you. My own calling was via a dream aged 9 where in bright shining letters the words
YE MUST BE BORN AGAIN appeared. Now at the age of nine it didn’t make any sense, so I asked a Christian adult what it meant,who led me in a prayer to receive Christ as my Saviour Thus began an amazing adventure which has resulted in me being spiritualy one of the very richest men in the world.However I had to learn “what great Salvation” this is. God calls people in many amazing and also very ordinary ways, then continues ,with our consent and the teaching ministry of the Holy Spirit the work of Salvation throughout our lives.To save us from Sin not just sins or sinfullness To save us from ourselves, from the lies and doubts of Satan ,from the wrath to come, from the World and its deceptions,and false teachers who attempt to rob God and us of His Glory. I feel that what God has done in you He is well able to complete in you. The Kingdom of God is the richest most restful, peaceful, joyful, and most love filled place in the world and it is All in Jesus.
Read the bible for all it is worth and His Spirit will lead you into all truth,Our Lord Jesus promises it and guarantees it.
There is one chap on here who is fixated with the Trinity. drawing us away from edifying teaching, which is regretable.
God bless you Richly Susanne.
Alan,
Sorry to but in before Suzannah but..
That’s a great testimony. Thanks.
Thank you for your encouragement. It’s amazing how God can intervene, even in the lives of children. I quite envy your experience at the age of 9. I didn’t experience ‘new birth’ until I was 29. Then again, I imagine you might have taken flack from school kids because of your faith. I love your description of “an amazing adventure”.
Correction, my maths is rubbish. I met Jesus at the age of 26, not 29.
Also, there are things in my life (after conversion) which I bitterly regret. I am no great Christian. But God was gracious to me at the point of conversion. Maybe I was so much trouble that I had to have that kind of conversion. I don’t know. But to be clear, I have certainly failed God since in lots of ways.
I didn’t mention but one thing that I think was significant about my conversion. It was in the Scottish Highlands, near where my aunty lives. I’d fallen in with a crowd that did drugs and heavy drinking, and I was getting more and more drawn in with them. One guy in particular I think saw I was easily led and started grooming me to try hard drugs.
But…
I was renting a cottage at that time, miles from anywhere, which was owned by a very devoted Christian lady. Each morning I saw her drive by on a way to a prayer meeting at 7 o’clock, held at a farmhouse a few miles away. There was *something* about her, whenever she called in to see how I was. Like some kind of *something* inside her. She was always very kind as well. And I was staying in her property.
I never knew God in any personal way. I just didn’t at that point. And the drink and drug sessions were growing more intense, and the pusher had promised to supply me with LSD and other hard drugs that next weekend so I could try them.
Something inside me was getting conflicted because of this woman.
I had read the first chapter of John’s Gospel, and the verse that especially nagged me was “The light shines on in the darkness and the darkness has never overwhelmed it.”
So much so, that a week before I had underlined it, and shown it to the lady. I figure she must have started praying for me, if she wasn’t already. I later discovered that her wider Christian community were also praying for me.
Then two nights before the drugs were due to arrive, I fell in with the guy and some of his mates in the pub. It was a night of thickest fog. And we all got drunk. “I’ll drive you back to your place,” he said when it was time to leave. I knew he was very very drunk, but I was so weak and agreed. The narrow country lane to my cottage was three miles off, and once on that lane (with such thick fog coming in off the sea) he started to lose control of the steering, and we veered and bumped a few times, and next moment all I saw was a flood of flashing headlights, then we were rolling over and over, and the guy was thrown through the windscreen, but I found myself under water, the car upside down in absolute darkness… and I just thought… ‘well that’s it, this must be my time to die’… but where my feet had been, there was now a gaping whole (the car had been written off) and it’s hard to explain but in the water and darkness I just felt a ‘presence’ (I think maybe an angel) leading me out through that whole now above me, and up to the surface and I reached the riverbank and found the other guy groaning and swearing in a bush.
We walked for about ten minutes in the wrong direction (it was so dark and foggy, and we were disorientated) then I realised and said we should turn round. After another half hour we got to the cottage, and he was cursing and swearing, and he was hurt so I dialed 999, at which point he vomited all over the carpet and chairs of this lady’s house. He was lucky – released from hospital the next day.
But I felt so ashamed!
Something else was going on though, which I was told about two days later. One of the Christian Fellowship – a local farmer – found himself taken up in prayer, praying in tongues, for two hours. He had no idea what it was about but he just felt he must keep on praying for someone. That time matched the time of the crash and the hours after.
Next day I went to chop wood for my aunty for something to do. I was in tears. I felt so ashamed, not just about the previous night but other things I’d done wrong in my life. In the end, emotionally drained, I asked my aunty if I could have a rest in her living room that afternoon. I fell asleep and it grew dark. But what happened next I never expected. I awoke to a sensation of light at the far end of the room. I can’t explain it. It wasn’t electric light. But more than that, there was a presence, a person (not visible, like I say, a presence) and I knew at once it was Jesus. Don’t ask me how I knew. More than that I knew in that instance that God was a person not a force, and Jesus was God, and Jesus was there. It was an overwhelming experience.
Like I said in the other post, I phoned the minister of the fellowship up, because bear in mind I didn’t know the details of the gospel or how it worked. Anyway, that community of Christians took me in, and nurtured me, and I witnessed the work of the Holy Spirit (it was a charismatic house church based at a farm), and the charismata were gentle, and about four months later, a day after having hands on me, I found myself speaking in tongues as well, and that’s never left me.
I’m sharing my testimony not because I am good (others here know I am complex and I know in many ways I have failed God) but because I know my conversion was real, and I would like people to know that we live in a world with a supernatural God who loves us to the point of no turning back, loves us even to death on a cross. And yes, I feel emotional about that. The events in a way were quite violent, so that’s why I quite envy Alan’s conversion at age 9, or that friend of mine who said coming to know Jesus was like crossing the moors between England and Scotland, and he didn’t know exactly when it happened but in the end he knew. Now that’s gentle.
My mum taught us the Bible every morning before school.
I remember one day she taught us about “turning the other cheek”,
At the bus stop going to school in town was the local bully who began grabbing my arm and giving me “chinese burns” a twisting of the skin on my arms. Stoicaly I said it didn’t bother me, He then proceeded to force my arm up my back leaving me in conciderable pain and tears.I sat on a seat at the front of the bus weeping hot anger and saying “It doesn’t work!, It doesn’t work!”
[I wasn’t sure what I expected to happen if or when I turn the other cheek}
A few years later the bully was walking with a friend who was carrying a loaded shot gun.Slipped and discharged the gun into his left arm completly shattering the bone he never regained full use of his arm. You work it out,but it taught me a lot about God and subsequent bullying episodes.
God bless you with the dew of heavenand and direct your hearts into the love of God
MATTHEW CH 9
How wonderful that we should arrive at recounting the miracles of God in our lives which is what CH.9 is full of.
In my younger days a time of testimony was a part of some services. They were not theologial insights, nor about what we have done for God, they were about what God had done in our lives. How we experienced God in our every day lives. It was what we called ” heart knowledge ” full of joy and peace. surely all those healed in Ch.9 were the first to engage in “Mission”along with all who Jesus healed and delivered before even the Disciples
“Go home to thy friends, and tell them how great things the Lord hath done for thee, and hath had compassion on thee. Mark 5:19
Oh how many great things we could speak of to the glory and praise of God.
To Phil :
WOW ! You’re asking some BIG, BIG questions, Phil !
I’ll get back to tomorrow.
Quick points : Manna came down from Heaven, but it may not have literally come down from Heaven.. The Apostle could have literally been transported to the third Heaven’, and came back down to earth, but Paul didn’t have a literal pre-existence. Furthermore, John’s Gospel may have been originally written from the Jewish perspective of ‘ideal pre-existence’, rather than from a perspective of a ‘literal pre-existence’. The Synoptic Gospels have what is called a ‘Conception Christology’, i.e. Jesus had no literal pre-existence (except in the plan and purposes of God), and only came into existence when He was conceived in the womb of Mary. All this kind of thing may be complete nonsense for the average Anglican ‘in the pew’- but it isn’t for New Testament scholars. This illustrates that there is still often a very wide gap between the average Anglican in the pew, and the world of Anglican, New Testament scholarship.
The ‘Word’ in John 1-13 could be a personification of God’s creative utterance, and His Self-revelatory activity. (cf. By our words, we reveal ourselves). Thus, in John 1:14, ‘God’s Self-Revelation’ could be seen as becomingly actively embodied within a human being, Jesus, Who may have been quite literally, the Son of God (because He was born of the Virgin Mary, via God’s holy Spirit). This is the way some Anglican scholars see things. When Peter calls Jesus a man (in Acts 2:22), and ‘the Messiah, the Son of the Living God’ (Matthew 16:16), who was appointed (Greek : epoiesen) to be the Messianic ‘lord’ (Hebrew ‘adoni’ for the second ‘lord’ in Psalm 110:1) and Messiah (cf. Acts 2:36), then again, Peter could be absolutely right. If so, then original New Testament Christology was very easy to understand.
Phil :
This is how Anglican scholar Tom Wright translates Romans 3:25-26 :
” God put Jesus forth as the place of mercy, through his faithfulness by means of his blood. He did this to demonstrate His covenant justice through the passing over (in the divine forbearance) of sins committed beforehand. This was to demonstrate His covenant justice in the present time : that is, that He Himself is in the right, and that He declares to be in the right everyone who trusts in the faithfulness of Jesus. “
Pellegrino
You wrote:
“Furthermore, John’s Gospel may have been originally written from the Jewish perspective of ‘ideal pre-existence’, rather than from a perspective of a ‘literal pre-existence’.”
So what is your view of the statements attributed to Jesus Christ in John’s Gospel. Like, for instance, John 17: 1-26. Did Jesus Christ actually say them all, including of course John 17:3?
Phil Almond
To Phil :
I believe that the words that Jesus utters in John 17:1-26 are true, but like the Apostle Paul, Jesus sometimes a biblical figure of speech known as ‘proplepsis’ (cf. Romans 8:30; John 17:5; 17:22). In John 17:3, Jesus merely reiterates the Jewish Shema, which He also did in Mark 12:29-30; which in turn, merely repeats Deut. 4:35, concerning ‘Yahweh’, Who is ALWAYS the FATHER (see Isa. 63:16; Isa. 64:8; John 8:41; 8:54) , in the Old Testament (See JB, NJB, Lexham English Bible; Legacy Standard Bible, etc) :
” You have been taught that Yahweh alone is God – there is no other beside Him.” (Deut. 4:35; NJB).
I believe Jesus, in John 17:3 – but you don’t, do you Phil?
God bless you, Phil.
Pellegrino
“And now, Father, glorify me in your presence with the glory I had with you before the world began” (17:5) is a prayer to the Father and “…the glory I had with you before the world began” proves that the speaker existed before the world began.
I do believe Jesus spoke the truth in 17:3 but I don’t agree with your understanding of what he said because your understanding contradicts with John 1:1-18, for instance.
Phil Almond
To Philip :
(1). Jeremiah was already fully known, and already fully appointed to be a prophet by God, before Jeremiah was even born. However this probably doesn’t mean that Jeremiah literally ‘pre-existed’ his own human birth (cf. Jeremiah 1:5).
Likewise, believers are foreknown, and foreordained, chosen and ALREADY GLORIFIED, before the foundation of the world (Rom. 8:30; Eph. 1:4; Matt. 25:34). However, this probably doesn’t mean that believers literally “pre-existed” their own human births. The very same “pre-existent glory ” of Jesus (in John 17:5) is also given to Jesus’ disciples in John 17:22, and to all future believers in John 17:20-22. This is why Paul can say that believers are already ‘glorified’, in Romans 8:30. However, all this could refer to an “ideal pre-existence” in the mind and purposes of God (cf. Romans 4:17), and to the biblical figure of speech known as ‘prolepsis’.
(2). As Professor Colin Brown (General Editor of the ‘New International Dictionary of New Testament Theology’) writes :
“It is a common but patent misreading of the opening of John’s Gospel to read it as if it said, ‘In the beginning was the Son, and the Son was with God, and the Son was God.’ What has happened here is the substitution of ‘Son’ for Word (Gk. logos) and thereby the Son is made a member of the Godhead which existed from the beginning.”
John 1:14 is thought to be based on a poem or hymn, and ‘the Word’ is a personification of God’s logos or His ‘Self-Expressive activity’. This personification finally becomes personalised in John 1:14, by being embodied within a human person – Jesus. Thus a legitimate translation of John 1:1 is, :
“In the beginning was the Word,
and the Word was with with God,
and the Word Expressed God .”
What’s your explanation of John 17:3, Phil ?
God bless you, Phil.
To Phil –
Should read :
“John 1:1-14 is commonly thought to be originally based on a poem or hymn ….”
God bless you, Phil.
Pellegrino
1 In the past God spoke to our ancestors through the prophets at many times and in various ways, 2 but in these last days he has spoken to us by his Son, whom he appointed heir of all things, and through whom also he made the universe. (Hebrews 1:1-2)
This quote says that God made the universe through the Son. This means that the Son existed before the Incarnation.
Also,
“What and if ye shall see the Son of man ascend up where he was before?” (John 6:62)
“Very truly I tell you,” Jesus answered, “before Abraham was born, I am!” (John 8:58)
Phil Almond
Pellegrino
“For by him all things in heaven and on earth were created, things visible and invisible, whether they are kings, lords, rulers, or powers. All things have been created through him and for him.” (Colossians 1:16)
makes the same point.
Phil Almond
Thanks for your points, Phil.
I’ll be with you, tomorrow (God willing).
I discussed the Col. 1:15 ff points with the amiable Anglican scholar, and world-leading Christologist, Jimmy Dunn. I’ll tell you about it tomorrow.
Stayed tuned !
God bless you.
Hi, Philip;
I’ll make a start by briefly answering a couple of your questions :
Hebrews 1:1-2 :
The Greek word ‘Aionos’ in Hebrews 1:2 primarily means ‘Ages’ (e.g. The Patriarchal age, the present age, the messianic age, etc). The Greek word ‘en’ can mean : ‘ because of’; ‘by means of’; ‘on account of’; ‘for the sake of’.
The meaning of Hebrews 1 :1-2 therefore, could well mean :
“God [with the definite article ‘the’, signifying the Father Who is the only true God of the Jews (John 8:41; 8:54), and the only true God of Jesus of Jesus (See John 17:3; John 20:17; Rev. 1:6; 3:12)], after He had spoken at various times and in many past ways to our forefathers through the prophets, has in these last days spoken to us through a Son, whom God has appointed heir of everything, and because of whom God originally designed the ages.”
Hence the Son is not necessarily being portrayed as a pre-existent being, nor as Creator of the Universe. Only our Father God created the physical universe (See Isa. 44:24, and Rev. 4:11).
Colossians 1:15-16 :
The Greek ‘Prototokos’ in Col. 1:15 can mean ‘First in rank’. Hence some New Testament translations render it as ‘supreme’. Thus, as in the CJB :
“He is the visible image of the invisible God. He is supreme over all creation [i.e. as God’s appointed Messianic lord; cf. Acts 2:36; Psalm 110:1 (i.e. ‘YHWH [our Father God]) said to my lord’ (Heb. ‘adoni’ = a non-Deity title)].
The common English translation “in him” at Col. 1:16, is the Greek ‘en auto’, which can be interpreted as causal, thus meaning :
‘because of him’, or ‘for his sake’, or ‘with him in view’, or ‘with him in intention’ (cf. Nigel Turner’s ‘A Grammar of NT Greek’). Hence, Col. 1:15-16 could legitimately be read along the following lines :
” He [The Messianic lord Jesus] is the visible image of the invisible God, supreme of the whole creation, because it was with Him in intention, that everything was originally created by God [the Father, the only true God] in heaven and on earth [Isa. 44:24; Rev. 4:11] …..all things have been created because of him [Jesus], and for him”
Again, the verse does not prove that Jesus is a pre-existent being, nor that he is literally, the Creator of the physical creation.
I’ll get back to you tomorrow Phil, with some more answers (Deo volente).
God bless you, Phil.
Phil;
I sent you message today on John 6:62, but it didn’t go through. Do you want me to re-write it ?
To Philip :
With respect to John 6:62 :
As the Anglican scholar John Henry Bernard wrote :
“Jesus used [the title Son of Man] of himself with the implication that in him was the fulfilment of the vision of Daniel…It is the title which he specially employed, when he was foretelling to his disciples the Passion as the inevitable and predestined issue of his public ministry.”
(“St. John, International Critical Commentary”).
The ‘Son of Man’ (which is Aramaic idiom for a human being) is foretold in Daniel 7:13-14. Jesus is thus referring to Himself as pre-existing in the prophecy of Dan. 7:62, which came to fulfilment after the Ascension in Luke 24:50-51. Trinitarians do not believe that a human being (the ‘Son of Man’) literally pre-existed in heaven. Jesus of course, figuratively ‘came down from heaven’, because He was born through the agency of God’s holy Spirit, via Mary.
You generally need to learn more about Hebraic and Aramaic linguistic idioms, and biblical figures of speech, Philip.
God bless you.
Pellegrino
You have not explained the phrase in 6:62 “where he was before”. Trinitarians believe that the Person, the Word, who was in the beginning with God and was God, took man’s nature in the incarnation. That is what Jesus was referring to in “where he was before”.
5 Have this mind among yourselves, which is yours in Christ Jesus, 6 who, though he was in the form of God, did not count equality with God a thing to be grasped, 7 but emptied himself, by taking the form of a servant, being born in the likeness of men. 8 And being found in human form, he humbled himself by becoming obedient to the point of death, even death on a cross. 9 Therefore God has highly exalted him and bestowed on him the name that is above every name, 10 so that at the name of Jesus every knee should bow, in heaven and on earth and under the earth, 11 and every tongue confess that Jesus Christ is Lord, to the glory of God the Father.
(Philippians 2:5-11, ESV)
I regard this passage as conclusive proof of my case. I will not be posting again on this subject.
God bless.
Phil Almond
Phil –
Before you go, Phil – you still haven’t answered my one single, solitary question I gave you :
‘Was Jesus telling the honest Truth in John 17:3, when He said that the Father was the ONLY True God ?’
The Greek word ‘ONLY’ in John 17:3, is ‘monon’, which means ‘exclusively’, ‘only’, ‘alone (without a companion)’.
In response to your questions :
1. Not all Trinitarians believe that the ‘Logos’ in John 1:1 refers to any person, because the ‘Logos’ here is probably a personification, with the personified ‘Logos’ only becoming a person in John 1:14 (See ‘Christology in the Making’ by world leading Christologist, and Anglican scholar, James D.G. Dunn; and also Professor Colin Brown’s (Fuller Seminary) Christological work.
2. Jesus was ” foreordained before the foundation of the world, but was manifested in these last times”. (cf. 1 Peter 1:20).
This suggests that Peter believed that Jesus, like believers (cf. Rom. 8:29), were foreordained and foreseen in God’s plans, purposes and prophecies (e.g. Daniel 7:13-14). By the biblical figure of speech known as ‘prolepsis’ Jesus was ‘in heaven with God’, as prophetically forecast, and foreseen.
3. The footnotes to the (Roman Catholic) ‘New Jerusalem Bible’ at Phil. 2:5-11, state that these verses portray ‘Adam Christology’, rather than any ‘Pre-existence Christology’. An in-depth study of the NT Greek, therefore, reveals that your ‘proof-text’, Phil, is no such thing. See also, the scholastic, information packed, short video on Phil. 2:5-6, at :
https://restitutio.org/2020/08/04/348-bible-19-gods-form-or-gods-nature-translating-philippians-2-6
God bless you, Phil. (Don’t forget to answer the question on John 17:3)
So there we have it, readers :
Philip has apparently gone without saying whether Jesus was right or wrong, to say that :
The FATHER is ” The ONLY True God”. (John 17:3).
I believe Jesus was right.
Unitarianism is a rationalistic approach (placing human reason above revelation) to the text of the Bible. Unitarians may claim the Bible as their authority, but they reject and distort anything in the Bible that they cannot comprehend. It is not the text of the Bible that determines unitarian theology but what they think is possible. The Apostle Paul warned the Corinthians about accepting a Jesus that is different from the Jesus proclaimed by the apostles (2 Corinthians 11:4).
Alan –
Jesus said that the Father is “The ONLY True God “.(John 17:3)
I believe Jesus, and You don’t, do you, Alan?
You simply don’t believe that the Father is ‘the ONLY true God’.
Any Post-New Testament belief that depends upon Jesus uttering “untruths” and falsehoods” in John 17:3, contradicts the clear Scriptures which state that Jesus was not a liar (John 8:55) , and Jesus was morally sinless (John 8:46; Heb. 4:15).