This will not be a common practice on this blog, so as to not steal Meredith's blogging style. -- While scripting in my head a possible blog post, I used the word "intimate" (using the less commonly known definition of it: To make known subtly and indirectly). I wondered whether people would think that I was showing off since it's a word that's not in common use, which could easily be replaced by "imply" or another synonym that's more widely familiar. A friend once used a big word and he was criticized for it. -- I want to admit that I don't know anything about the pill. I said in an earlier post that I might share my thoughts about the birth-control pill. I don't have any. There, I've shared my thoughts. I think that I was trying to so more knowledgeable than I am. I apologize. -- Probably the biggest contention between Catholics and Protestants is the use of Scripture. Catholics would say that there are two infallible rules of faith, tradition and the written Scriptures. One of the tenets that Martin Luther fought for in the reformation was Sola Scriptura. It "teaches that the Scriptures are the sole infallible rule of faith for the Church" (taken from James White). Anyway, since the Catholics (claim) to rely on tradition, they introduce doctrines like the eternal virginity of Mary, purgatory or the infallibility of the Bishop in Rome (eventually dubbed the Pope), to name a few. The one in particular I want to talk about is the dogmatic statement of Ark of the Covenant (Ex. 25:10-16; Hw. 9:4) as a type of Mary. (Read here about types.) Usually what a protestant would do upon hearing the rationale for thinking there's a biblical defense of the type (i. that both the Ark and Mary bore the Word of God; ii. in Ex. 40:34-38 and Lk. 1:15 God overshadows Mary and the Tabernacle, in which is the Ark), he criticizes how poor the biblical defense is. I think that this is dangerous. If (and I recognize that this is a very big "if") the Ark of the Covenant were a type of Mary, inspired by the Spirit, then the use of these biblical passages in this way is legitimate. What needs to be done first is show that the Roman Catholic Church has no innate authority, that it only has authority in the Word. Then show that the Scriptures don't suggest that the Ark is a type of Mary, so we don't need to look for verses to support it. The reason I point this out is that if we fail to state that the Roman Church doesn't have the authority to dogmatize unbiblical types, jumping into pointing to the poor exegesis of Rome, then we suggest that's how Matthew's writings should be dealt with. Matthew 2:15 says, "This was to fulfill what the Lord had spoken by the prophet, 'Out of Egypt I called my son,'" quoting Hosea 11:1. When you read the Hosea passage in context, the "son" being spoken of was clearly Israel. So, Matthew, under the inspiration of the Spirit, pointed out that Israel was a type of Christ. If it had been that God didn't inspire Matthew, then we should say that he's either a fool or a liar for misusing the OT like that. But God is essentially saying through Matthew, "I called Israel out of Egypt to make to make it look like history parallels my Son's life." Rome could do that too if they actually had the authority to interpret the Church's history, but they don't. -- One of the reasons I hadn't posted in a while is because I'm still debating what the purpose my blog is. As I said, I have no intention in indulging in the feast of having your attention over my personal life, so this won't be a blog where I post diary entries. But, I still want my blog to be unique, offering you something that you can't get elsewhere, otherwise it would be wasting your time. So, while I've had a few ideas for posts, I didn't think I could offer something that hadn't been done before. I'm still thinking through this. -- -- Over Reading Week '05, I was studying 1 Corinthians. I came to the eighth chapter, verse 6. Part of it reads, "for us there is one God, the Father." That whole year I struggled with whether I agreed that the Bible supported the doctrine of Christ's divinity. When I came to this verse, it almost tipped me over the edge to heresy. Until last week I'd been uncomfortable with what I thought the implications of that verse were. If only the Father is God, how can Christ be God? The other day, though, I heard James White explain that if you use the same logic on another part of the same verse, "for us there is ... -- I also heard James White talk about how a Muslim recently argued that Jesus couldn't be God since He ran from His creatures when He was born. I think it's hilarious.
one Lord, Jesus Christ," then it implies that the Father is somehow God without being Lord, which is absurd. The verse actually implies the divinity of Christ!
Wednesday, October 8, 2008
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
Posts
3 comments:
My dear truthseeker,
you weren't being tipped over the edge into heresy!!
You were being tipped by Scripture & Scripture alone, over into truth - only truth can make you free!
(And if indeed heresy then alongside Paul, after the way which they call heresy, so worship I the God of my fathers, believing all things which are written in the law and in the prophets: Acts 24.14)
What you saw, was that the plain sense of this verse (1 Cor 8.6), clearly points outs that only the Father is GOD!
There is ONE GOD, the Father.
That is the plain sense of the verse. Paul says, To Us i.e, to the early church, we have ONE GOD, the Father.
And so you rightly asked yourself, If only the Father is God, how can Christ be God?"
Amen! That it!!
Christ's cannot! Christ isn't God!
He never claimed to be GOD.
He himself identified the Father
as the only true GOD!!
[John 17.3];
The only GOD!!
[John 5.44].
In total agreement with Paul & the early church; which ought to be obvious seeing that they are his disciples; and Jesus is their Lord & Master.
Remember, what he said, to Mary:
(John 20:17) Jesus saith unto her, Touch me not; for I am not yet ascended to my Father: but go to my brethren, and say unto them, I ascend unto my Father, and your Father; and to my God, and your God.
So, both Testaments clearly teach that there is solely ONE GOD. Jesus our Lord & Master identified this ONE GOD as the Father. Amen.
Jesus Christ therefore, is the Son of the ONE GOD,
the Son of the Father.
[2 John 3]
Now concerning James White's comments:
if you use the same logic on another part of the same verse, "for us there is ...
one Lord, Jesus Christ," then it implies that the Father is somehow God without being Lord, which is absurd.
Now I don't need to remind you, Peter, of the obvious choice between the words of GOD and Mr. White's words.
Again, look at the plain sense of the text.
Yes, Paul as just stated that "outside of the church as it were", there be gods many, and lords many,; but to us:
There is ONE GOD & ONE Lord.
So yes, he is claiming that the the Father is GOD & not Lord in the context that Paul is using the title 'Lord' in regards to the Son;
just as the ONE Lord, Jesus Christ, using the very same logic cannot possibly be the Father, the ONE GOD!!
What then does he mean? How can Paul say this & the early church say Amen??
The answer is this:
what did the early church mean when they called Jesus, 'Lord'? Were they calling him the LORD GOD? NO!!! What then?
Turn to Psalm 110.1
In our English Bibles, you will see the word 'lord' twice.
The first word 'LORD' in the Hebrew is GOD's name i.e. YAHWEH (or Jehovah)
The second word 'lord' is the Hebrew word adoni; a Hebrew word used 195 times in the Hebrew Bible to mean a lord/master' who is NOT GOD, NOT Deity i.e. human beings and occasionally angelic beings. This word is never ever used in ref. to Almighty GOD.
(Verify the word adoni, with a lexicon or with someone who reads Hebrew)
So, in Ps. 110.1; the most quoted OT verse in the NT, YAHWEH was prophetically saying to David's lord/adoni, to sit at His right hand.
This verse is used as a prooftext by both Jesus and his disciples to define Jesus' Lordship
Now turn to Mark 12:28-34.
Before a Jewish scribe, Jesus the Jewish Messiah, quotes the Shema (Deut 6.4), which every Jew knows, means, to them, there is solely ONE GOD, ONE DEITY, YAHWEH
Note the scribe's response:
(Mark 12:32) And the scribe said unto him, Well, Master, thou hast said the truth: for there is one God; and there is none other but he:
Jesus confirmed his Jewish belief & faith in solely ONE GOD in accordance to Deut 6.4.
Obviously then, the scribe didn't believe Jesus was his GOD; and Jesus in fact, said that the scribe art not far from the kingdom of God!
After defining who the ONE GOD is, then look what Jesus says in Mark 12:35ff.
Jesus quotes Psalm 110.1, where the ONE GOD, YAHWEH, is speaking of David's lord/master/adoni; and Jesus identifies himself as that lord who will one day be invited to sit at YAHWEH's right hand.
The common people heard him gladly.
They understood what Jesus was saying.
Jesus is indeed the Son of David; David's biological, descendant.
However, seeing that Jesus is also GOD's Son, the Messiah; he is therefore also David's lord/master/adoni by YAHWEH's decree.
Jesus the Messiah, therefore, is not YAHWEH. Rather, he is the Lord Messiah,
[Col 3.24, Luke 2.11]
David's Lord and our Lord.
Now turn to (Acts 2:32-36)
This Jesus hath God raised up, whereof we all are witnesses. 33 Therefore being by the right hand of God exalted, and having received of the Father the promise of the Holy Ghost, he hath shed forth this, which ye now see and hear. 34 For David is not ascended into the heavens: but he saith himself,
The Lord said unto my Lord, Sit thou on my right hand, 35 Until I make thy foes thy footstool. 36 Therefore let all the house of Israel know assuredly, that God hath made that same Jesus, whom ye have crucified,
both Lord and Christ.
Now is Peter telling his audience that YAHWEH has made the crucified, resurrected Jesus of Nazareth, both YAHWEH & Christ???
NO!!!
Peter is clearly declaring that the ONE GOD, YAHWEH; has made the crucified, resurrected Jesus of Nazareth,
both Lord & Messiah,
in fulfillment of Psalm 110.1.
Jesus of Nazareth is NOW that Lord, that Master, that adoni at GOD's right hand;
therefore he is truly
the Lord Jesus Christ,
the ONE man that GOD Almighty had ordained to be at His right hand
and be made "Lord of all"
[Acts 10.36]
Hence Jesus is the 'one' Lord,
of Psalm 110.1.
Hence we have One God and Father of all
[Eph 4.6]
and One Lord [v.5],
the man Christ Jesus.
Hence,
(1 Tim 2:5) For there is one God, and one mediator between God and men,
the man Christ Jesus;
Hopefully now you can see the difference between the "LORD" GOD
and the "Lord" Messiah.
The Father is the ONE GOD, YAHWEH.
Whilst Jesus of Nazareth is the ONE man whom YAHWEH has made 'Lord/Master/adoni' of all.
Hence ONE GOD,
ONE Lord,
1 Cor 8.6.
The logic is intact, it is not absurd.
Think about it??
Was the Father made "Lord"?? NO!!
So, Paul does indeed mean that Jesus is the ONE "Lord" in the sense that the Father, the ONE GOD, is not!
And of course, seeing there is solely ONE GOD, the Father, and Jesus is not the Father; then Jesus is not the ONE GOD.
Let me now quote James Dunn, he sums it up beautifully:
Unity & Diversity in the New Testament, SCM Press Ltd, 1977, page 53:
“Should we then say that Jesus was confessed as God from the earliest days in Hellenistic Christianity?
That would be to claim too much.
(1) The emergence of a confession of Jesus in terms of divinity was largely facilitated by the emergence of Psalm 110:1 from very early on (most clearly in Mark 12:36; Acts 2:34f.; I Cor. 15:25; Heb. 1:13).
The Lord says to my lord:
‘Sit at my right hand,
till I make your enemies your footstool’.
Its importance here lies in the double use of kyrios. The one is clearly Yahweh, but who is the other?
Clearly not Yahweh, but an exalted being whom the Psalmist calls kyrios.
(2) Paul calls Jesus kyrios, but he seems to have marked reservations about actually calling him ‘God.’ ...
Similarly he refrains from praying to Jesus. More typical of his attitude is that he prays to God through Christ
(Rom. 1:8; 7:25; II Cor. 1:20; Col. 3:17).
(3) ‘Jesus is Lord’ is only part of a fuller confession for Paul. For at the same time as he affirms ‘Jesus is Lord’, he also affirms ‘God is one’ (I Cor. 8:5-6; Eph. 4:5-6). Here Christianity shows itself as a developed form of Judaism, with its monotheistic confession as one of the most important parts of its Jewish inheritance; for in Judaism the most fundamental confession is
‘God is one.’ ‘There is only one God’
(Deut. 6:4). Hence also Rom. 3:30; Gal. 3:20, I Tim. 2:5 (cf. James 2:19). Within Palestine and the Jewish mission such an affirmation would have been unnecessary — Jews and Christians shared a belief in God’s oneness. But in the Gentile mission this Jewish presupposition within Christianity would have emerged into prominence, in face of the wider belief in ‘gods many.’
The point for us to note is that Paul can hail Jesus as Lord not in order to identify him with God, but rather, if anything, to distinguish him from the One God
(cf. particularly I Cor. 15:24-28; ...).”
Whew! Peter. That's enough for you to begin with.
Be Berean & go over again the true sense of
1 Cor 8.4,6; in identifying who the ONE GOD is & who the ONE Lord is.
As an aid, I thoroughly recommend this video:
The Human Jesus
Take a couple of hours to watch it; and prayerfully it will aid you in your quest for truth.
Any further questions, feel free to email me.
May GOD bless you, Peter, through the knowledge of God, and of Jesus our Lord, Amen.
Adam, Which fellowship do you worship with?
Not to spend too much time on this, but I obviously disagree. The verse that kept me tethered to Christ's divinity until recently was Titus 2:13, "waiting for our blessed hope, the appearing of the glory of our great God and Savior Jesus Christ" [ESV]. The other cults and the Unitarians would disagree with this verse as a proof text though, because, most of them existed before the formulation of the Granville Sharp Rule, which applies to translating Titus 2:13 and 2 Peter 1:1. That's why the KJV, translated before the formulation of Granville Sharp, translates Titus 2:13 as, "Looking for that blessed hope, and the glorious appearing of the great God and our Saviour Jesus Christ" (emphasis added). But all honest Greek grammarians would admit that the ESV, the NIV, the NASB translations of Titus 2:13 (all of which apply Granville Sharp) are more accurate than the KJV's. So there's no question that Paul taught that Jesus was God.
Going back to 1 Corinthians 8:6, that it's a proof text of Christ's divinity is stronger than I alluded to within the post. In fact, Paul is alluding to the Shema of Israel (which Adam mentioned in his comment), "The LORD our God, the LORD is one" (Dt. 6:4). Paul is directly saying that Jesus is the Yahweh of the Shema.
On another note, Ignatius of Antioch (50-110AD) pretty clearly believed that Jesus was God. And Tertullian (160-220AD) used the word "Trinity." The early Church worshiped Christ, though, I will concede that Arius did have followers by the time of Nicea I. The point is that the apostolic fathers didn't unanimously deny Christ's deity.
Upon re-reading what I wrote in my comment, I want to clarify what I meant when I wrote, "The point is that the apostolic fathers didn't unanimously deny Christ's deity." By saying that, it suggests that the majority of the Church fathers denied the divinity of Christ. I don't think that they did (in fact, I'm certain that they mostly affirmed Christ's divinity because I believe that Jesus would build His Church on pure doctrine), but I don't know a source to point to suggesting that the majority of the fathers affirmed that Christ was God.
I need to be careful with my wording because there were many Arians (deniers of Christ's deity) by the time of the first council of Nicea, and it went back and forth: most believe He was God, then most believing He wasn't, and so on.
But for the time after Christ ascended, I think that there was a solid contigent of men who affirmed Christ's divinity (i.e., not near a concensus).
Post a Comment