Deity of Jesus for salvation?

[Guest]

Paidion,
Thank you for that very interesting information. I am fascinated by Justin's example of the small fire taken from the larger fire. It differs from the illustration, used, I believe, by the Eastern Church, of Jesus being like the radiant light (and the Holy Spirit being like the heat) of the sun (which was likened to the Father).

Justin's illustration presents Christ as of the same essence and nature of God, but now having a separate and independent existance from the Father. Whereas the Eastern view has Christ as an aspect or extension of God continually proceeding from the Father.

I am sure that current orthodoxy would label one of these views as heretical, but I find no scriptural reason for doing so.

It is just thought-provoking.

[Guest]

Paidion (seems to be more of an understatement),

You have caught my attention as your view is the first time I have heard of it or at least presented in the way you have. Being raised Trinitarian how would you defend your position against those holding the view in regards to the Holy Spirit being a separate person and part of a Trinity with the Father and Son? For example passages like Acts 5:3, 4 which seem to show traits of a person or John 14:16, 26; 15:26; 16:7-15 etc...where Jesus speaks of sending another separate from Him and the Father (I know there are more but these were just a couple off the top of my head). Now I’m just posing the questions to see how your point of view would respond I’m definitely not comfortable in my knowledge (lack there of) of the subject to try and debate a specific point, I’m just looking to get more info. I was able to find that writing of Justin Martyr (thanks for the reference) that you had mentioned. For those interested in it along with a lot more, it can be found at http://www.earlychristianwritings.com/.

Erich <><

[Guest]

I am a trinitarian but it seems to me one cannot say much about the subject without getting into speculation to some degree. If Peter's confession to Jesus, "thou art the Christ, the Son of the living God", was received by Jesus with so much approbation, who are we to judge anyone who understands no more than this?

A man who worked for me for several years had once been a troublemaker and treated others badly. He became a Christian and an astonishing change occured. Once arrogant and belligerent, he became humble and gentle. When people treated him badly, if I said anything to him about it, he would invariably respond by saying something complimentary about the other person. I found his character so admirable that I thought to myself "I can't be like him, let alone be like Jesus". A brilliant man, he has studied the scriptures assiduously. He is an Arian.

The question to me is do we judge him in regard to his devotion to Christ, or on the basis of his failure to understand the doctrine of the Trinity as we do? Everywhere the final judgement is discussed, it is based on what we have done; I don't rcall any mention of our technical knowledge.

I am not a betting man but if I was, I'd bet "400 red hogs" that at least 9 out of 10 of Christians can't adequately explain the Trinity. The early Christians thought Christianity was a simple religion, if not, God has not provided a way of salvation for the majority of people.

In Christ, Homer

[Guest]

Very well-put, Homer!

[Guest]

Homer,

I agree with you completely and you have brought up a great reminder that we need to be careful that in our pursuit of truth and knowledge that we don’t become puffed up to think that because we may have some higher doctrinal understand than another (and not to forget there will be always someone who knows more than another) that, that somehow puts us on a higher level or in better graces with God. At the same time keeping that in mind isn’t this very forum setup for those who desire to have discussions about these difficult issues? Again not to show we are better than another but to grow in our knowledge of Him. Yes at its foundation the Christian faith is a simple faith that even a child can understand but shouldn’t we desire more? To leave the discourse of the beginnings of Christ that we may move on to full growth? (paraphrased) Hebrews 6. And didn’t even Peter seem to have a hard time understanding the things Paul taught (2 Peter 3:15,16)? Shouldn’t someone in an attitude of love seek to understand these difficult things to help the “unlearned” not “pervert” the Scriptures? I’m very curious to hear more of what Paidion has to say if not for the reason to know how to have an intelligent discussion should I ever meet someone who holds his view in the future.

Erich <><

[Guest]

I have been asked to explain further my concept of the Father, the Son, and the Holy Spirit.

As has already been mentioned, Jesus promised that He and the Father would make their dwelling with a person who loves Jesus and keeps His word:

John 14:22,23 Judas (not Iscariot) said to him, "Lord, how is it that you will manifest yourself to us, and not to the world?"
Jesus answered him, "If anyone loves me, he will keep my word, and my Father will love him, and we will come to him and make our dwelling with him.

"We will come to him" ---- plural --- the Father and the Son dwell with, and in, a true disciple.

Why didn't Jesus state that the Holy Spirit would also dwell within the one who loves Him and keeps His word? Wouldn't this have been a prime opportunity to affirm the Trinity? For the Holy Spirit does dwell in Christ's disciples:

1 Corinthians 6:19 Do you not know that your body is a sanctuary of the Holy Spirit within you, which you have from God? You are not your own...

As I understand it, the presence of the Father and the Son within us IS the Holy Spirit. The Father and the Son share the same Spirit. The Holy Spirit is not a third Divine Individual or Person. Yet the Spirit is Personal --- not a mere force as some would have it. The Spirit is the very Persons of the Father and the Son. If They dwell within us, what need is there to postulate a third Individual?

If the Holy Spirit were the "third Person of the Trinity", would it not make sense to pray to Him? Indeed, we have hymns and choruses addressed to the Holy Spirit, "Come Holy Spirit, I need thee", "Come Holy Ghost, our souls inspire", "Spirit, now melt and move all of our hearts with love", "Spirit of God, descend upon my heart", "Holy Spirit, Light divine, shine upon this heart of mine", and many others.

Yet there is not a single instance in the Bible of anyone praying to the Holy Spirit! Is this not a significant fact? Does this not indicate that the Holy Spirit is not a third divine Individual to whom one can pray?

The Bible is full of prayers to the Father. Stephen prayed to Jesus as he was being stoned to death, "Lord Jesus, receive my spirit."
But nowhere in the Bible can one find a prayer to the Holy Spirit. How does the Trinitarian explain that? Or is it just "accidental" that no such prayer is recorded?

I have been asked to comment on some quotes by our Lord, recorded in the gospel of John, which suggest to some that the the Holy Spirit is a third divine Individual:

John 4: 16,17 And I will pray the Father, and he will give you another encourager, to be with you permanently, the Spirit of truth, whom the world cannot receive, because it neither sees him nor knows him; you know him, for he dwells with you, and will be in you.

Let's see. Would this passage suggest a third Person just as strongly, if the pronoun "it" were used instead of "he" and "him"?

And I will pray the Father, and he will give you another encourager, to be with you permanently, the Spirit of truth, whom the world cannot receive, because the world neither sees it nor knows it; you know it, for it dwells with you, and will be in you.

The translators, assuming a third Person, translate the pronouns as "he" and "him". There is no way of grammatically determining which it should be. In this case, the pronoun which has been translated as "he" is the neuter pronoun "auto". But this doesn't in itself prove that it should be translated as "it", for in Greek, pronouns agree in gender with their antecedent. In this case, the antecedent is "spirit", a neuter noun.

Since the Father and His Son are in absolute unity, They share one Spirit. Thus we read about the "one Spirit" in I Corinthians 12.
True, the Scriptures speak of the Spirit of God (the Father) and also of the Spirit of Jesus (the Son). Yet, they are not two Spirits, but one Spirit.

It really isn't strange that Jesus would refer to the Father's and His presence in His disciples as "another encourager". For there is a sense in which Their Spirit is "another". There's the Father and Jesus in Heaven, sending the extension of their Personalities (their Spirit). From a human viewpoint, their Spirit could be considered as other.

John 14:26 But the encourager, the Holy Spirit, whom the Father will send in my name, he will teach you all things, and bring to your remembrance all that I have said to you.

Again, would it make a difference in its effect if it were translated "that one will teach you all things"? In this case, the pronoun "ekeinos" (that one) is a masculine pronoun. That's because this time it's antecendent is "encourager", a masculine noun.

John 15:26 But when the encourager comes, whom I shall send to you from the Father, the Spirit of truth, which proceeds from the Father, that one will bear witness to me.

The Father Himself, through the Spirit which proceeds from Him will bear witness to Jesus. It reminds me of what is recorded in John 8:

John 8: 17,18 In your law it is written that the testimony of two people is true; I bear witness to myself, and the Father who sent me bears witness to me."

If, in John 15:26 Jesus had in mind a "third Person" called "the Spirit" who would bear witness to Him, why wasn't this "third Person" included in John 8:17,18?

John 16:7 Nevertheless I tell you the truth: it is to your advantage that I go away, for if I do not go away, the encourager will not come to you; but if I go, I will send it to you.

Why is it necessary for Jesus to go away in order that the encourager, the Spirit, will come? Could it be that while Jesus was a human beng, He could not extend His Spirit to some remote place apart from His body? Did He first have to be resurrected in order to extend His Spirit into His disciples?

John 16:13-15 When that Spirit of truth comes, he will guide you into all the truth; for he will not speak on his own authority, but whatever he hears he will speak, and he will declare to you the things that are to come. He will glorify me, for he will take what is mine and declare it to you. All that the Father has is mine; therefore I said that he will take what is mine and declare it to you.

This time, I am leaving the pronoun as "he". I could very well have done so all along. For the Spirit is the Persons of the Father and the Son. Also the Spirit is one, and is personal. Thus there is really no problem using the personal pronoun "he" when referring to it.

If you were gathered with a group in a room, and I had the abilility to extend my personality into the room and converse with you and the group, you would sometimes refer to me as "he", knowing that I was Paidion. Or you might call me by my name Paidion. Yet, just because you are addressing the extension of me as "he" doesn't imply that you are addressing a different individual from myself.

The extension of my personality, my "spirit" so to speak, would be able to talk to you, and to listen to you. This wouldn't indicate that my spirit is a different person from me. Similarily, the Spirit of the Father and of Jesus can listen, and talk, and declare what He has heard. That doesn't imply that He is a different Person from the Father and Jesus.

[Guest]

Paidion,

Let's see, the spirit is personal, the spirit is two persons, also the spirit is one. Deeper into the swamp we go! You prove my point about speculation.
In comparison, I must say the trinitarian concept is simpler.

I agree in regard to praying to the Holy Spirit but that does not sustain your point. I believe Stephen's cry to Jesus and John's "come Lord Jesus" are the only passages that could be construed as prayers to Jesus. I'm sure you are aware that prayers are virtually all addressed to the Father, so it is easy to see that prayer might not be directed to the Holy Spirit.


In Christ, Homer

[Guest]

Let's see, the spirit is personal, the spirit is two persons, also the spirit is one. Deeper into the swamp we go! You prove my point about speculation.

To be more precise, the Spirit is one --- but the extension of the personalities of Two Persons. I see no inconsistency here. I don't think I've even begun to set foot into the swampl

In comparison, I must say the trinitarian concept is simpler.

1+1+1=1

From Jesus' prayer:

John 17:3 And this is eternal life, that they may know you, the only true God, and Jesus Christ whom you have sent.


In my opinion, the trinitarian concept is impossible!

[Guest]

Paidion,

As I understand you, you have no problem with 1+1=1, but 1+1+1=1 is impossible. When we apply human reason to uncreated beings existing in another realm I think we rather quickly get in over our heads (this obviously includes me).

Job 11:7 "Can you fathom the mysteries of God? Can you probe the limits of the Almighty?

I must assure I am not judging you as you search for truth.

Blessings, Homer

[Guest]

Am I the only evangelical who thinks there may be some muslims who will inherit eternal Life? There are millions upon millions of muslims that are, simply put, muslim by birth. They've never known anything else. Some of them are, I'd imagine, truly seeking the true God. They might not call Him what we call Him, but they are truly seeking Him. They might be skeptical of some of the lies attached to God by muslim teachers, but they haven't heard otherwise.

These men & woman recognize from creation that there is a God (Romans 1:20). Perhaps they even respond positively when God speaks through their conscience (Romans 2:15). They simply haven't received the light of Christ (or else they've been told false information about Him).

I don't think such people are saved by some Way other than Christ. I just think Christ's grace reaches out to them in the same way I believe it reaches out to children and the mentally handicapped.

I tend to think their is a remnant of true Truth seekers in every culture.

Hi Matt,

The following abstract is from "The Last Battle" by C.S. Lewis (the book is the last in the Chronicles of Narnia series). It looks like C.S. Lewis may share your view too.

Then I fell at his feet and thought, Surely this is the hour of death, for the Lion (who is worthy of all honour) will know that I have served Tash all my days and not him. Nevertheless, it is better to see the Lion and die than to be Tisroc of the world and live and not to have seen him. But the Glorious One bent down his golden head and touched my forehead with his tongue and said, Son, thou art welcome. But I said, Alas, Lord, I am no son of thine but the servant of Tash. He answered, Child, all the service thou hast done to Tash, I account as service to me. Then by reason of my great desire for wisdom and understanding, I overcame my fear and questioned the Glorious One and said, Lord, is it then true, as the Ape said, that thou and Tash are one? The Lion growled so that the earth shook (but his wrath was not against me) and said, It is false. Not because he and I are one, but because we are opposites, I take to me the services which thou hast done to him. For I and he are of such different kinds that no service which is vile can be done to me, and none which is not vile can be done to him. Therefore if any man swear by Tash and keep his oath for the oath's sake, it is by me that he has truly sworn, though he know it not, and it is I who reward him. And if any man do a cruelty in my name, then, though he says the name Aslan, it is Tash whom he serves and by Tash his deed is accepted. Dost thou understand, child? I said, Lord, thou knowest how much I understand. But I said also (for the truth constrained me), Yet I have been seeking Tash all my days. Beloved, said the Glorious One, unless thy desire had been for me thou wouldst not have sought so long and so truly. For all find what they truly seek.