Kingdom Ready Blog

19 Comments »

19 Responses to “Do You have to Believe in the TRINITY to Be a Christian?”

1. on 18 Jun 2010 at 11:28 am1 Anthony Buzzard

   It is astonishing that people do not think about this: Christianity abandons its own founder’s creed (Mark 12:19) and substitutes a philosophical creed from the church fathers! Does no one object to this? Is Jesus pleased when his first commandment to hear that “God is one Lord” (not two or three lords) is flouted and replaced?
   The issue of believing in the right God pervades every page of scripture.
   Paul is sometimes misunderstood when he speaks of “believing that God raised Jesus and confessing this for salvation.” Certianly we must believe this, but calling Jesus lord cannot mean despising Jesus plain unitarian creed. And in Rom. 10:17 “faith, belief comes by hearing Messiah’s Gospel message”! That message is the Gospel of the Kingdom which Jesus commands us to believe for salvation. Luke 8:12 is a devastatingly interesting verse and equal in importance the need to believe that God is one Person and not Three.
   The fatal danger is that we claim to believe Jesus, and then turn our backs on what he commands us to believe!

2. on 18 Jun 2010 at 4:32 pm2 Ron S.

   GREAT post Angela!

   The part where you said
   

   “Wouldn’t that have been an awesome time to have put in the Trinity requirement?”

   That really made me LOL. Funny and VERY true.

   It boggles the mind the hoops that Trinitarians will attempt to jump through to explain a non-biblical concept that most of them don’t understand. And that’s not a slam on their intellect at all – for who can understand something that illogical.

   Anthony really hammers home the point that Christianity today needs to come to grips with what their founder actually preached. They need to face the music that Jesus upheld the unitarian Jewish creed of Deut. 6:4 – that God is ONE (a word & mathematical concept that means only one – not two or three or more) LORD. It is not hard to grasp. It only becomes hard when people wish to uphold the traditions of men over the truth of the one they claim to follow and love.

   BTW, I love that you brought up what was promised concerning the seed that was to be the Messiah. This is something that needs to be repeated over an over. Indeed it was never meant to be God – but a MAN, a real literal descendant of Eve, of Abraham, of King David. A pre-existent, eternal, 2nd member of the Godhead taking on the body of a human is just an act. A sham that makes a mockery of what the Scriptures predicted. That’s not something I can believe in or even greater – truly trust. No, God doesn’t deceive or fool us. What the Scriptures predict is just what happened when Gabriel told Mary that God’s Holy Spirit would cause her to miraculously conceive that intended Messiah. That’s the real deal that the Bible foretold. Not one of the “persons” of God pretending he was a man.

3. on 19 Jun 2010 at 12:27 am3 Ray

   Have you ever seen a painting of the Last Supper with Jesus and his disciples?

   Can you imagine one of them turning to another one and saying,
   “If you are not a trinitarian you’re not a Christian.”? or one of them grabbing his brother by the coat during the meal and saying loudly, “Lord! This man is not a trinitarian!” ?

4. on 25 Jun 2010 at 10:31 pm4 David

   Trinitarianism and all other theologies that require contortion of Scripture, or one to “shoe-horn” Holy Writings to fit them remind me of the acrobatics one will go thru when they are trying to tell a lie and subsequently covering it up.

   When something which isn’t true is said by someone and is challenged or confronted with facts to the contrary, another lie must be told in order to explain the former. When this new lie is brought to light another lie must be spun in order to reaffirm the first. What we end up with is a hodge-podge of inconsistencies, and stories that do not match the facts. Such is false doctrine.

   Why would it be that the Bible tells us everything “else” in plain language but leave the most important points concerning matters of our faith to be left to speculation? The only reason one would have to speculate is because they would be trying “read in” a doctrine that isn’t written in Scripture; let alone one that completely foreign to the world-view and background of the author’s who wrote it.

   The Hebraic writers of the Scriptures believed in a monotheistic system. Not a polytheistic system consisting of three good “gods” and one really bad “god”. In my studies I’ve found the scriptures to allude and tease on to panentheistic system which would suggest that “G-d is an ocean, and we are all drops of water…” but this definition and any like it really would not do the Holy One justice.

   Trinitarianism is idolatry. Such a view causes one to look to the image of Messiah as a god-man and thus have labeled G-d has so. One then fails to recognize the spirit of G-d in others who do not identify with this image, even though we are clearly told what he fruits of the spirit are in Galatians chapter 5. An even more striking revelation is the answer Yeshua gives to the question “What must one do to inherit eternal life?” – to which he answers with the parable of the “Good Samaritan”.

   There is a wealth of knowledge and wisdom hidden that one cannot see it if they believe strange doctrines and foreign worship….

   But now I am going on a wild tangent, and that is topic for another discussion another day.

   I just wanted to chime in and say that this was a very good article and I found it very informative and would have to say that I agree.

5. on 26 Jun 2010 at 12:11 am5 Xavier

   David

   I recently skimmed through a book called Jesus was a Jew by a Messianic Jew called Alex G. Fruchtenbaum Arnold.

   In his chapter titled “Jewish Objections to Jesus” he argues that the reason why his fellow unbelieving Jews do not accept orthodox theology concerning the Godhead [i.e. Jesus being God] is their misunderstanding of it. The reason being is that orthodoxy talks about God becoming a man and not a man becoming God. And since God can pretty much do anything he wants, why can’t this be true.

   How would you counter such statements?

6. on 26 Jun 2010 at 2:25 am6 David

   Numbers 23:19 sums it up clearly that G-d is not a man, or son of man. Malachi 2:10 is pretty straight forward in itself that there is only one G-d. The hermeneutics applied by Jews are pretty straight forward, and the Scriptures are meant to be read quite plainly. They cannot be interpreted to contradict one another. Where there is a contradiction, there’s an error in interpretation… an unraveling of the Scriptures would happen.

   Although it is quite possible for G-d to do as He wills, for us to take that stance we’d have to start deviating from what is in Scripture.

   The problem of the argument, in my opinion, lies in the idea behind a man-god character. A man-god comes dangerously close to being a replacement G-d… No matter how it is sliced we are introducing a separate “god” into the picture. Also, if G-d were to take on a finite body and identity He would himself become an idol. If this were the case then it would paint G-d to be a crafty liar with a strange sense of humor who couldn’t be trusted, neither in deed or in word. It’s obvious G-d could but won’t.

   I rather see King Messiah as walking within perfect love and submission to the will of G-d, thus a perfect expression of G-d. To be one in will, feeling and purpose is to have equivalence of form. All of G-ds children contain His essence. It’s man’s evil inclination that pushes us apart from that heritage. Seeing Messiah as an untouchable god-man, is a very disheartening an unempowering way of seeing things. It makes it very hard to realize that the very same potential is locked away in every human being, for it was written that “…we shall be One with the Father as our Messiah is One with the Father.”

   The real problem with a finite being being projected as G-d is that it takes our eyes off what G-d is and puts Him in a box. We stop seeing the spirit of HaShem in all walks of life. We just look only to see if one subscribes to the same form of religion as us as if Messiah wanted fans and not true disciples. I firmly believe when it comes to our faith, there is a difference between knowing what G-d wants us to do and doing it. One needs not know the path or way they are walking to walk it. The root of idolatry is divisiveness and the failure to see that G-d is in everything… that there is none else beside Him.

   Thats what I would say to that. It is much more than man becoming a god, it is much more than a contradiction of scripture, but rather a complete undermining of the reasons such instruction was given.

   It’s about building Gan Eden. It’s about realizing our unity with our G-d thru the example and sacrifice of our King Messiah and our unity with each other. Yeshua quoted the Shema when he said the first commandment is to “Love the L-rd your G-d with all of your strength, with all of your soul and with all of your might… and the second is LIKE it. You should love your neighbor as your self.”

   I truly love the interconnection of this and the implication that we should regard one another as vessels for G-d’s spirit and that in our interactions with one another to behave as if we are in the presence of the Holy One.

   The interconnection of the relationship our G-d has with his creation and our connection to each other is very apparent. This is why no idols. All idols and attempts to define G-d just divide us. It causes us to say say “My god is better than your god”… missing the beautiful point held by the Hebrews completely…. That there is none else besides Him.

7. on 26 Jun 2010 at 8:33 am7 Xavier

   David

   …if G-d were to take on a finite body and identity He would himself become an idol.

   How would you compare this with what Jesus says “that all will honor the Son even as they honor the Father. He who does not honor the Son does not honor the Father who sent Him.” Jn 5.23

   And the worship that is given to the Lamb of Rev 5 alongside “Him Who sits on the throne”?

   It makes it very hard to realize that the very same potential is locked away in every human being…

   Isn’t this dangerously close to the Gnostic and now Mormon theology of people becoming gods?

   Lastly, why do you write “G-d” and revert to the Hebrew idiom of “Yeshua, HaShem” etc?

8. on 26 Jun 2010 at 12:56 pm8 Ray

   If being a Christian is to be as another who is a Trinitarian, then I suppose one would have to be a Trinitarian to be a Christian, but what Trinitarian is the standard of being a follower of Christ who said, “If you salute your own, what reward have you?” (Matthew 5:47). Unless there are Trinitarins who say, “You don’t have to be a Trinitarian to learn from Jesus.”, I don’t think I should often follow them.

   Could it be said of such, that they therefore must think Jesus to have been one who speaks idle words, and hence they have denied the diety of Christ, not recognizing him as the messiah, and therefore have neither the Father nor the Son?

   I wonder how many think they are following Jesus if they become as those who are Trinitarians.

   There are Christians who set up their two or three point perimeters
   which they have determined to be the line of “defending the faith”.
   Sadly it became their prision and they later became the instruments
   of the system, being used to gain the more.

   I would rather be used by Christ to set the captives free.

9. on 27 Jun 2010 at 2:43 am9 Gary Sibio

   You made a logical error. You rejected the lady’s statement because you could not find it in the Bible. Where does the Bible teach that the Bible alone is our only source of spiritual truth that is binding on the believer. It does not. You are holding to a view called sola scriptura which was invented by the Waldensian heretics and popularized by Martin Luther. It is a false tradition of men and not only not found in Scripture, it contradicts it. You are just as guilty as you claim the woman is.

   1 Tim 3:14-15 says, “I write this to you in the hope that I may be able to come to you soon; but in case I should be delayed, I want you to know how people ought to behave in God’s household — that is, in the Church of the living God, pillar and support of the truth.”

   It is the Church which is the pillar and support of the truth, not the Bible. The Bible

10. on 27 Jun 2010 at 1:59 pm10 Ray

    I trust that Christ is the Christian’s source for truth and that he is not limited to what he gives by limiting himself to giving out only scripture verses. Rather, he is led by the Spirit of God, as always.

    What prohibits a Christian from calling upon God, Jesus, and the help of the Holy Spirit, by calling upon the Trinity? Nothing that I know of except if it causes his brother to fall, be hindered, or be impaired in his walk with God.

11. on 28 Jun 2010 at 12:34 am11 David

    Xavier,

    (I really apologize for the long response!)

    [quote]
    How would you compare this with what Jesus says “that all will honor the Son even as they honor the Father. He who does not honor the Son does not honor the Father who sent Him.” Jn 5.23
    And the worship that is given to the Lamb of Rev 5 alongside “Him Who sits on the throne”?
    [/quote]

    There is an article I ran across explaining the differences between the worship the Father receives and the worship the Son receives. It explains the wording in their Hebrew context here and gives examples showing the very important differences in wording when the Scripture is referring to worship rendered to G-d, and worship given to Messiah. There is a clear difference. In addition it explains the nature of the role of Messiah and why worship would be given to our earthly Messiah, but it is not the same form of worship given to G-d.

    Article here:
    http://www.facebook.com/topic.php?uid=61418912603&topic=26741

    Also we do have to take a look at what the above scriptures do not say.

    Ex 1. “…He who does not honor the Son does not honor the Father who sent Him because they are the same person.”

    Ex 2“… worship is given to the lamb alongside to Him Who sits on the throne because they are the same person”
    In example #1 I’ve illustrated how Trinitarian apologists understand the text. But we know that this text does not say this… It merely states that if you do not honor the anointed chosen one whom G-d Himself has sent that you are dishonoring the one who sent Him. If a king sends a messenger whom the king has given his royal seal to, it would be a dishonor to the king, if you did not honor the messenger who has been given the seal of the king.

    There is a great article explaining the Hebraic idea of “agency” and provides some proof texts.

    Article:
    http://www.torahofmessiah.com/shaliach.htm

    Those are some good sources of information, helping to explain the matter

    In example #2 we have a passage that if interpreted through the Trinitarian view, would mean that G-d existed as another separate being and sat beside Himself. That is the text would literally read if filtered through the idea that G-d is a triune of some sort. Everyone will agree, apologist included, that the above interpretation is polytheistic.

    It is because of this exact challenge when interpreting scripture this “Trinity” doctrine was created. It’s the invention that came to be to explain away how the above interpretation is not a polytheistic interpretation.

    When we take G-d who is a unified whole and we separate Him weather physically, intellectually, or conceptually, we have created more than “one”… Even if trying to explain that He is still One, we have already separated Him in an attempt to explain Him.

    The Jews of Yeshua’s day and today even, understand that the commandment prohibiting idolatry teaches that one should serve no created thing – angel, human, plant, star, earth, fire, water (or anything formulated by them) or idea.

    Even if one knows that G-d is the Supreme Being who is the sum of all that ever is or ever will be, who encompasses all things… even if one understands this who in an attempt to worship G-d Himself does this thru worshipping say… “the universe” or “all of creation” as a way of glorifying G-d or His creative ability is also idol worship.

    Thus even if G-d existed as a Triune, the very acknowledgement of a Triune and worship of any aspect of it would be worship of an image or idea. Something absolutely not sanctioned by the Torah, and a tenant that the authors of the Apostolic Writings would have clung to vehemently. Many Jews died at the hands of the Church for clinging to very faith that Yeshua himself believed and proclaimed.

    Taking these things into account we see that there’s some slippery ground we’d be standing on with regards to the Trinity. We would be proverbially as the scriptures say “… boiling a kid (goat) in its mother’s milk.” Or “building an altar unto G-d with hewn (cut) stone”. The underlying principal is that one must not take what is made to give life, in order to take it. And one must not attempt to build a temple to G-d with something that is meant for slaying.

    When we take a holy concept (God’s Moshiach), unique to the Hebrew people and create an unbiblical doctrine around it, and then turn around and attribute that very same doctrine to G-d’s messiah, we then use an instrument of G-d to usurp G-d himself. We then make Messiah into something that is described in 2 Thessalonians 2:3

    This is not what I would recommend. I certainly would not gamble with placing my faith in a doctrine invented by a room full of Romans which wasn’t solidified into a doctrine until over 400 years after Messiah walked the earth. This is a doctrine created by foreign men who knew nothing of the Hebrew mindset, worldview, values or the G-d of the Hebrews, and subsequently tried to systematically execute anyone affiliated with the original Hebrew faith who might testify otherwise.

    In order to make the doctrine of the Trinity work, it needs yet another new doctrine to silence the places in where the Bible points out blatant contradictions. Thus replacement theology is introduced. This is the “G-d screwed up and had to change his plan” theology amongst many others. This new doctrine is invented to fancifully explain how many of the Hebraic scriptures no longer apply. Yet we use many of the same scriptures as support for the identity of Messiah. This is selective reading and begins the unraveling of the entire Bible.

    Doctrines should be created to FIT SCRIPTURE. Not the other way around. Instead the early Church fathers have butchered the scripture (and it’s original keepers) in order to make it FIT their foreign western DOCTRINE.

    Worshiping the Son in the same way that one worships the Father of all creation (as explained above) would be Idol worship… Period. This is not what Messiah would want, not what he believed, not what the authors of the NT believed, and certainly not what was expected by any of the Hebrews in the bible awaiting G-d’s Messiah. If it was, then he could not be Messiah by G-d’s very own law.

    The fatal danger of the trinity doctrine is that it promotes a doppelganger of the original Messiah in scripture. This new Messiah is a shadow, you will, of the real Messiah written about in Scripture. The scriptures are the same, and the reference the exact same King Messiah and Son of G-d… but the doctrine creates a different Messiah with a completely foreign spin. This trinity allows for Messiah to be chewed up, beaten into a completely different shape, dress him in a nice Roman god-man cloak, and then finally spits him out the other end. The result is a replacement-Messiah with a theology and appearance that is so different from the original historical Hebrew Messiah of the Bible that not even his own Hebrew mother and brothers would recognize him… surely not the people of Yisrael as we can clearly see today.

    It’s no wonder that when one looks at the accomplishments Messiah is to do when he returns, that the exact same list of achievements exists for the one called Anti-Messiah… or “replacement Messiah.” How can two people do the exact same thing? They can’t.

    Danger Will Robinson, Danger…

    I’d like to say, I have no problem with Trinitarians. I have a problem with what the doctrine implies and makes possible, and how it subsequently requires the original faith and scripture to be butchered. Trinitarians aren’t bad people; they are merely trying to share what they believe it to be the truth. Likewise, if I feel that the doctrine may be in error, I too feel the need to share why and how.

    Lastly… the trinity separates us from G-d. I will explain that below as I explain the other point:

    [quote]
    Isn’t this dangerously close to the Gnostic and now Mormon theology of people becoming gods?
    [/quote]

    I’m not an expert on Gnosticism or Mormonism, but from what I do know, what I am explaining could not even be close. I am not describing anyone becoming a god. It would be foolish to state that one can become a god and exist apart from G-d and His will – independent and on his own. The world was created as a dwelling for G-d, for Him to live with us. It is alluded to when the Holy One “breathed” into “man/Adam” to give him life.

    From the Genesis account we are told that the reason for the broken connection and co-habitation of G-d and man was because of sin. In very easy-to-get and plain language the author tells us there was only one rule as if to say, “Just do what G-d says to do, and you will have life. Do the opposite and you will have death.”

    The bible is very clear that G-d is an incorporeal being. How can Adam walk the garden with an incorporeal being? Yet the scriptures tell us so. He breathed His breath/spirit “Ruach” into man. And man was to commune with G-d thru obeying His word… We all know that the word is to LOVE. Yeshua haMashiach said it. Great rabbis have said it. When we don’t we become disconnected.

    When we abide in G-d’s commandments we are abiding in G-d because HE abides in us. For the word is G-d. When we do not abide… we become disconnected from G-d, we loose our standing and become a confused mess.

    It is not about or ever about becoming a god. It is about “conforming” ourselves to His will, and His word, and His image so that we too are perfect expressions of his Love and that His word be made manifest in us as it was in our Lord Yeshua. For this is what it means to be a “joint-heirs” with Messiah. It is about taking on the “quality” and “character” of G-d. In that you become a healthy extension. You would not be an independent “god” doing your own will, you would be doing G-d’s will.

    Stop to think for a moment. What is a cancer cell? It is a cell in the body that has stopped communicating and working with the rest of the body in the way that it was created to perform. It is doing it’s own thing. The “Torah” or instruction or teaching written in the heart of the cancer cell has been forsaken and the cell has become corrupt. Like-wise or in a similar fashion so bacteria and viruses and other disease are foreign to the body and do not have this “instruction” written in it.

    These things aren’t “conformed” in any way to the body like the healthy cells. The healthy cells are doing exactly what the body needs and requests, they exist with each other and act accordingly to the way they are wired from within on some very minute sub-atomic quantum level. So is the rest of the world. “There is None else beside Him.”

    Thus from a Hebraic standpoint, man cannot become G-d. G-d is eternal and infinite. Nothing can exist outside of G-d for besides G-d there is nothing. This would be like saying a drop of water can become the ocean. It would be like a fingernail becoming the entire body. This is imposslbe.

    What man CAN do, is eventually become conformed to the Image of G-d thus becoming a perfect expression of G-d just as Master Yeshua “grew in wisdom”, so can we. G-d exists within us and we exist in G-d. We are not becoming G-d. King Messiah isn’t a god. Becoming just like Messiah would not be man becoming a god. It would be man becoming “like G-d” in terms of character, quality, and will. It is ONLY in that sense that anyone could be understood as fully human and fully divine. “I and the Father are one.” Does not mean “I am the Father”. It would be ridiculous to think we would meet the Father, directly in His entirety, face to face. The bible tells us we would die. What we can do is love one another and bring that spark of G-d out of us, expressing it thru walking in love with one another and encouraging others to do the same. This is the purpose of the word of G-d.

    [quote]
    Lastly, why do you write “G-d” and revert to the Hebrew idiom of “Yeshua, HaShem” etc?[/quote]

    I’m Netzarim Messianic. It’s common for me to use Hebrew idioms. I’ve tried to refrain but they come out anyways. ☺ In Jewish tradition we write the name “G-d” or use “HaShem” (lit.: the name] to avoid writing the name of G-d and it being printed out and later possibly discarded like trash. It is out of reverence to G-d. I always refer to Messiah as Yeshua. It is after all what his mother and friends would have called him and it’s something I feel more comfortable with. My mind associate the name Jesus with the god-man roman rendition of Messiah so I try to avoid using it.

12. on 28 Jun 2010 at 12:56 am12 David

    Correction….
    2 Thesselonians 2:3-4….

13. on 06 Jul 2010 at 9:08 am13 Phil McCheddar

    I think the doctrine of the trinity formulated by the early church made sense within their Hellenistic intellectual context, and even today the old formula safeguards some valid insights. But I don’t think the classical doctrine of the trinity is the perfect template for making sense of the relation between Father, Son and Spirit in the New Testament, and I sympathise with anyone who cannot conscientiously recite the Nicean creed. I do not think it is necessary to sign up to the doctrine of the trinity in its traditional wording in order to be a Christian. But I think it is a dangerous error to view Jesus as no more than a creature commissioned, authorised, and empowered by God to act as His representative.

    Angela wrote:

    If you found out that Jesus is not God and in reality, he never was God, and never will be God, would you no longer have a faith in Christ Jesus? Would the religion and faith of Christianity crumble and disintegrate at your feet? Would your hope be gone? . . . It does not change my hope or downgrade my faith.

    My answer to this very interesting question is that my faith would change enormously if I discovered for certain that Jesus is not fully God, and it would feel like I had lost something fundamental and precious.

    I would struggle to know how I should relate to Jesus my lord without breaking the first commandment to have no gods before/besides YHWH. If I knew Jesus were only an agent of YHWH, on a similar level to Moses or Gabriel, I would find it hard to love Jesus more than I love my family and myself (Luke 14:26) and hard to deny myself and relinquish everything for Jesus’ sake and always put Jesus before my own desires (Luke 9:23-24). Loving Jesus is not a clinical mechanical action but something involving my emotions. I would feel as though my heart were split between loving Jesus to the extent he asks and loving YHWH with all my heart, mind, soul, and strength–like a bigamist whose wives compete with each other to woo his affections. If Jesus were not essentially one with YHWH, I would feel my love and loyalty would be split and I would struggle to avoid loving Jesus so much that I snub YHWH and make Him jealous. (I don’t see how the principle of agency would help in this situation because you cannot love someone vicariously by loving that person’s representative. If I love Jesus then I am primarily loving Jesus himself and not primarily loving the God who is standing in or behind Jesus.)

    If Jesus were only an agent of YHWH, I would find it hard to do what he says without feeling I was making a god of him. Jesus said that if I come to him he would give me deep true fulfilment and satisfaction for my soul (John 6:35). But the fulfilling of my deepest needs is an intimate affair between me and my God, and I wouldn’t want a 3rd party intruding.

    When I feel frightened, lonely, or vulnerable, I would recall Jesus’ words in John 14:1 that as I trust in God so also should I trust in Jesus. But if I already trust in God to protect and comfort me, and if God is all-sufficient, why should it be necessary for me to seek help from Jesus too? I could accept that God may choose to help me via an agent after I have called upon God for help. But in John 14:1 Jesus invites me to in effect call upon him and upon God for help, in effect treating them as equal.

    When I feel weary and worn down by life (Matthew 11:28), I would instinctively want to draw closer to God so that He would renew my strength and ease my burden. Turning instead to one of His creatures would feel incongruous, even if that creature could act as a channel of God’s strength to me and could do for me all that God could do for me. I would feel I had a reach-me-down secondhand relationship with God.

    My experience of eternal life consists in knowing the only true God (where ‘knowing’ means not just knowing about Him but communing with Him in my spirit), but why is it indispensable that I should also know one of God’s creatures in order for me to attain this eternal life (John 17:3)? If my heavenly Father has made His home with me and is dwelling inside me, what further desire would I have for a creature to also dwell inside me to fill a gap (John 14:23)? Two’s company; three’s a crowd.

    If I am saved on the day of judgment, I will rejoice for ever more in God’s mercy & kindness to me and I will thank & praise Him for doing so much good to me despite my unworthiness and contrary to my deserts. But if Jesus is not essentially the same being as YHWH, then I will also owe deep everlasting gratitude to one of my fellow creatures for my entry into God’s kingdom rather than perishing in the outer darkness.
    If many died through one man’s trespass, much more have the grace of God and the free gift by the grace of that one man Jesus Christ abounded for many. (Romans 5:15)
    For you know the grace of our Lord Jesus Christ, that though he was rich, yet for your sake he became poor, so that you by his poverty might become rich. (2 Corinthians 8:9)
    Keep yourselves in the love of God, waiting for the mercy of our Lord Jesus Christ that leads to eternal life. (Jude 21)
    To me it would feel inappropriate to split my gratitude for such a wonderful gift between the uncreated almighty supreme lord of the universe and one of His finite creatures.

    When I am living with God in the new heaven and new earth, I will worship God throughout eternity for all that He is and all that He has done. Then God will no longer need to use intermediaries. Now the dwelling of God is with men, and He will live with them. They will be His people, and God Himself will be with them and be their God (Revelation 21:3). When I can see God directly and when He is all in all, I think I would feel I was committing pagan idolatry if my vision of God’s throne was obscured by the figure of a fellow creature who shared the limelight with God and to whom I am expected to genuflect with self-abasement and awe (Revelation 5:12-13).

    So for me to become a unitarian would downgrade my faith.

    Respectfully,
    Phil

14. on 06 Jul 2010 at 12:08 pm14 Jaco

    Mr McCheddar,

    So for me to become a unitarian would downgrade my faith.

    From your post above, I could sense that you are seriously contemplating these issues. I suppose that, by viewing these matters as distinct, even in such absolutist terms, would create a cognitive dilemma.

    I suppose even in ancient Israel such absolutist approaches would have resulted in much incongruence indeed. Consider the thought of addressing an angel, a servant (Ps. 104:4), as Yehowah! (Ex. 23:21) Not only was this one to be obeyed, but he received the honor ‘of pardoning transgressions!’ Who was the one actually pardoning error here – Yehowah or this angel???

    Then there was Moses…the only one who could survive God’s presence (Ex. 33:17-23)…the one who would be Elohim(!) to the High Priest (Ex. 7:1)…rebellion against whom (Nu. 16:3) was regarded as rebellion against Yehowah (Nu. 16:11)…how could the Israelites have resolved this?

    What about the temple? It is clear that Yehowah dwells in heaven (I Kings 8:27), yet, when praying, faithful worshipers had to face the temple (I Kings 8:29). How could this be reconciled with the prohibition of worshiping idols? Where is Yehowah actually – in heaven or in his temple, since his presence filled the TEMPLE (I Kings 8:11).

    Then there were the Judean kings. They were the ones “sitting upon Yehowah’s throne” (I Chron. 28:5, 29:23); the king, who was a type of Messiah, was to be kissed and in whom refuge was to be taken (Ps. 2:12)…wasn’t Yehowah the Israelites’ refuge (Ps. 18:2, 91:2, Pr. 18:10)?

    But the last thing, Mr McCheddar, the last of all things the faithful Israelite would EVER do, would be to worship the angel as Yehowah Himself, or Moses as God incarnate, or the ark of the Covenant in the Holy of Holies where Yehowah’s presence was as God gold-plated, or even the Judean King as God Almighty. How did the faithful non-Jewish Gentiles react? Did they convert monotheistic Judaism into a polytheistic hybrid religion? Did they view all these issues as masked polytheism complete with incarnations and avatars? That probably crossed some Gentiles’ minds…I tend to think that the Gentile eagerly wanting to worship the true God, Yehowah, had to undergo major reconditioning of his/her religious frame of reference. They undoubtedly asked questions of similar kind as yours. The first-century polytheists probably faced the same dilemma(s). I am convinced, however, that those who loved Truth enough were refined and gradually came to an accurate understanding of God and Jesus (1 Tim. 2:3, 4). I am convinced that they also had to make their minds new (Eph. 4:22-24). But did they yield to the temptation to hybridise God’s Word so as to fit their frames of reference and their imperfect understanding? Mr McCheddar, only the most hardened apostate would have had the stomach to dare tamper with God’s word (Heb. 3:12-15)!

    Mr McCheddar, I will NEVER accuse you of polytheism or idolatry. I think you are an honest-hearted seeker of Truth as many of us are. In fact, I consider you to be my spiritual brother. I just want to urge you to continue to pray for wisdom and a new spirit of understanding. I trust you will be safe in taking such a course.

    In Christ,

    Jaco

15. on 06 Jul 2010 at 12:42 pm15 Mark C.

    I think it is a dangerous error to view Jesus as no more than a creature commissioned, authorised, and empowered by God to act as His representative.

    I agree. That’s why I don’t claim that he is NO MORE THAN a commissioned representative of God. (See the discussion currently going on in the “How Important is Correct Doctrine” thread.)

16. on 06 Jul 2010 at 2:05 pm16 robert

    Jaco
    You have truly became an ambassador for christianity.
    While there are some subjects we still disagree on , I have a lot of respect for your opinion.
    The great thing is I know we can always be friends and brothers even after we have an intense discussion.
    If more people had your attitude there is no doubt in my mind that we could bridge a gap between all beliefs that has been needed for 19 centuries.
    I wish I would of understood this a long time ago

17. on 06 Jul 2010 at 11:46 pm17 Angela

    Wonderful, loving, respectful comments above! Excellent! And I think Phil makes a good point, in how does one look at Jesus, if he is not God? Does this in fact, downgrade one’s faith? Can loving Jesus tear our devotion away and downgrade our faith in the one LORD God Almighty, who Jesus prayed to and submitted to? Would not Jesus’ light and glory get in the way of our Heavenly Father’s, where our loyalties would thus be forever divided between the two? These type of questions are very important and must be addressed, in order that we can really begin to grasp what God did for us, and what His plan is for us, through His Son, Jesus.

    For example, it sounded like it would be difficult for Phil, if he was asked to split his gratitude between the two (God and Jesus) for the great gift we have been given. A very valid point, stated with such eloquence and heart felt passion, that we can all appreciate here! This gift we have been given was from God, stated no better and no clearer than in John 3:16. “For God so loved the world that He gave His only begotten Son, so whoever believes in him, shall not perish, but have eternal life.”

    God provided us our salvation through His Son, Jesus. God has given us a way to inherit eternal life. The Lamb of God. I’ve been studying the Lamb of God recently, and I don’t believe it would make much sense to call Jesus, “God the Lamb” just as some have turned the “Son of God” into “God the Son.” God did not die for our sins. It was the gift of His special, uniquely begotten Son, who He would have to watch suffer and die for our sakes. To believe God in the flesh died for us, I think downgrades the gift.

    Yes, we must indeed be grateful to Jesus, for being obedient to the point of death. We can all appreciate his choice. He didn’t have to do it. Nor was it an easy task for him that he actually was looking forward to. He gave his life. Not just his body…but he died.

    But the Scriptures tell us repeatedly that God saved us through Christ. God, the Father, ultimately was the provider of this sacrifice. He provided the sacrificial Lamb for us, because He loved us so.

    So, I understand your dilemma, about wanting to make sure you love them equally as a man w/multiple wives..; but I resolve this mentally, by giving God the Glory that He deserves, as the God of the universe, the one and only Creator. I love Jesus and am grateful to him, also, but it is as the Lord Messiah, savior, coming King…not as the one true God. To elevate Jesus to godhood, would be saying that he wasn’t good enough of a gift for me. God exalted him and this only upgrades my faith, for as God exalted Jesus, we too, will be raised up with him and seated with him in the heavenly places in Christ Jesus in order that in the ages to come He might show the surpassing riches of His grace in kindness toward us in Christ Jesus (Ephesians 2:6-7). What a hope that gives us!!!!!!!!!!!!! Praise GOD! Halleluah! Praise YHWH!

    And one last point: I don’t think Jesus, the Lamb will obscure your view of God on the new earth, but “I saw no temple in it, for the LORD God the Almighty AND the Lamb, ARE its temple. And the city has no need of the sun or of the moon to shine upon it, for the glory of God has illumined it, and its lamp is the Lamb.” Rev. 21:22-23.

    They will BOTH be there, and I Corinthians 15:24-28 gives us a wonderful view that Jesus will, even in the end, be subjected to God, so that Almighty God may be all in all. It will obviously be an awesome sight to behold, and the only way to see this Holy, invisible, Majestic God, is being cleansed by the blood of the Lamb and our faith in him which makes us righteous in the eyes of our Holy God. They are very distinct in my mind, and I can love, honor, and glorify both with no problem! Jesus is not just an agent, but SO much more than that…but not YHWH.

18. on 24 Dec 2010 at 6:26 am18 Randy

    Today is Friday, Dec 24th, I was listening to John McArthur last evening. He was waving his “john calvin” mantle around and I and many others have been deemed a “heretic” for not believing Jesus the Christ is not God himself in the flesh. Thankfully McArthur doesn’t have the authority to also burn me at the stake or behead me. Seems as tho he is a believer in Calvin, worships Calvin and forsaken the one God of Israel.

19. on 24 Dec 2010 at 2:42 pm19 Doubting Thomas

    Randy,
    I don’t know who John McArthur is, but I do know what it is like to be called a heretic because of my beliefs. When I tell people that I don’t believe it was God himself that died in the flesh on the cross, the reaction is usually, ‘Then how can you call yourself a Christian???’ Unfortunately many people believe that this is the central core belief, that is required, in order to be called a Christian.

    I am also thankful we don’t live in a age where we are jailed or burned at the stake for holding beliefs that are different from the status quo…

Leave a Reply

Name (required)

Mail (hidden) (required)

Website