Christians: Where do you draw the line?

[Katzpur]

Remember, we're talking about where the minimal requirements are to be considered a Christian. It may sound pious to "raise the bar" but I fear that some of us raise the bar higher than God does.

Frubals! How often people seem to think that God is looking for reasons to condemn His children to an eternity of agony. Jesus Christ said that men would recognize His disciples because of their love for one another. Oddly, that didn't even come up in ratioinactive's list.

 

[Dunemeister]

And with respect to items # 1 and #3, I imagine that the following would also apply:

1. You must believe that Jesus Christ (who is God) was His own Father and that His Father (who is God) was His own Son, and that God is both corporeal and non-corporeal at the same time and that Jesus prayed to Himself and that the Father answered His own prayers.

This obvious caricature of the doctrine of the Trinity does not help the debate. (Not to mention the uncharitableness of your expression.) It's fine if you don't believe the Trinity, but before you mock it, at least understand it. To say that the doctrine implies that Jesus prayed to Himself or that Jesus and God the Father are the same person means that you really haven't even tried to understand it. If you're going to engage in debate about a topic, at least do your opponent the honor of sympathetically attempting to understand it.

3. You must believe Jesus didn't really mean what He said when that it is those who keep His commandments who will abide in His love, or that He is the author of salvation of those who obey Him, or that it is those who do the will of His Father who will enter into the Kingdom of Heaven.

How in the world does 3 imply this? The Christian view is that faith in Jesus saves a person. But one's faith is proven by his deeds. So if one has faith but no deeds, we have every right to doubt whether the faith is genuine. Thus, genuine faith produces deeds "worthy of repentance." As a result, if one sees a person doing deeds "worthy of repentance", that is "the will of His Father", one can be more or less confident in that person's profession of faith. Yet it is the faith, not the deeds, that save. So if traditional Christians are wrong about this, it's not because we've misunderstood Jesus' sayings. Perhaps Jesus was mistaken?

And to top it all off, you must apparently believe that when Jesus said, "Judge not, that ye be not judged. For with what judgment ye judge, ye shall be judged: and with what measure ye mete, it shall be measured to you again," He wasn't talking to you. After all, if you've passed the five "absolute, core, fundamental requirements for being a Christian," He'll overlook something as trivial as you thinking you have a right to play God.

I think you are accusing Ratiocinative of too much. Certainly he's not playing God. But I think it's fair to say that no one should assume that they've entered the Kingdom of Heaven simply because they've got their theology straight (according to whatever tradition). However, I see no reason to condemn someone for having reasonable confidence that they have a right standing with God. For the apostle John himself wrote so that Christians "might know that you have eternal life." So it must be possible to have reasonable assurance that one has a right standing with God.

 

[uss_bigd]

This obvious caricature of the doctrine of the Trinity does not help the debate. (Not to mention the uncharitableness of your expression.) It's fine if you don't believe the Trinity, but before you mock it, at least understand it. To say that the doctrine implies that Jesus prayed to Himself or that Jesus and God the Father are the same person means that you really haven't even tried to understand it. If you're going to engage in debate about a topic, at least do your opponent the honor of sympathetically attempting to understand it.



How in the world does 3 imply this? The Christian view is that faith in Jesus saves a person. But one's faith is proven by his deeds. So if one has faith but no deeds, we have every right to doubt whether the faith is genuine. Thus, genuine faith produces deeds "worthy of repentance." As a result, if one sees a person doing deeds "worthy of repentance", that is "the will of His Father", one can be more or less confident in that person's profession of faith. Yet it is the faith, not the deeds, that save. So if traditional Christians are wrong about this, it's not because we've misunderstood Jesus' sayings. Perhaps Jesus was mistaken?



I think you are accusing Ratiocinative of too much. Certainly he's not playing God. But I think it's fair to say that no one should assume that they've entered the Kingdom of Heaven simply because they've got their theology straight (according to whatever tradition). However, I see no reason to condemn someone for having reasonable confidence that they have a right standing with God. For the apostle John himself wrote so that Christians "might know that you have eternal life." So it must be possible to have reasonable assurance that one has a right standing with God.

so, "God said in genesis let US create man" who was he talking to?
and, the verse that said " everything was created through him" why didnt he say through me if they are one?

so coffee with cream means coffee is the same as cream??

 

[Katzpur]

Wow! And all this after I gave you frubals!

This obvious caricature of the doctrine of the Trinity does not help the debate. (Not to mention the uncharitableness of your expression.) It's fine if you don't believe the Trinity, but before you mock it, at least understand it. To say that the doctrine implies that Jesus prayed to Himself or that Jesus and God the Father are the same person means that you really haven't even tried to understand it. If you're going to engage in debate about a topic, at least do your opponent the honor of sympathetically attempting to understand it.

I can see why you saw my post as a caricature. Having been told all my life by people like ratioinactive that I am not a Christian because I don't accept the doctrine of the Trinity, I knew exactly what he was getting at when he said, "You must believe that there is only one God." I do believe there is only one God, a Godhead comprised of three physically distinct personages who are absolutely and perfect united in will, purpose, mind and heart. For people like ratioinactive, though, it's not enough that I believe in the divinity of God the Eternal Father, His Son Jesus Christ and the Holy Ghost. I must also understand their relationship in exactly the same way he does. Believe me, I've made every effort to understand the Trinity. This isn't exactly the first time I've had this discussion. When people are willing to be respectful of my beliefs, I am willing to extend the same courtesy to them. I'm sure that when you get to know me better, you'll find that to be true. Ratioinactive hasn't exactly been respectful to me in the past, which is why I responded as I did.

How in the world does 3 imply this? The Christian view is that faith in Jesus saves a person. But one's faith is proven by his deeds. So if one has faith but no deeds, we have every right to doubt whether the faith is genuine. Thus, genuine faith produces deeds "worthy of repentance." As a result, if one sees a person doing deeds "worthy of repentance", that is "the will of His Father", one can be more or less confident in that person's profession of faith. Yet it is the faith, not the deeds, that save. So if traditional Christians are wrong about this, it's not because we've misunderstood Jesus' sayings. Perhaps Jesus was mistaken?

Ratioinactive said, "You must believe that faith in Christ alone is how we obtain said forgiveness, and not through our own actions." Your interpretation of the role works plays in the process of salvation is really not all that different from mine. I believe that we are, in fact, saved by grace, apart from anything we can do. Ratioinactive, on the other hand, has implied that our actions (by which I assume he meant repentence and a sincere resolve to do better in the future) don't make any difference to the Lord, and that if we have faith in Him, that's all that matters. I believe Jesus Christ made it clear that we must keep His commandments, be obedient and do the will of our Father in Heaven. We know that we as human beings are incapable of doing that 100% of the time, but the Lord does expect the best of us that we have to give. Once again, I have been told on far too many occasions that, because I believe that Christ's gift of grace is offered to those who do more than merely pay lip service to him, I am guilty of believing that I can earn my way into Heaven. I was responding to ratioinactive based on what I know he thinks about my beliefs and how he has debated his point of view in the past.

But I think it's fair to say that no one should assume that they've entered the Kingdom of Heaven simply because they've got their theology straight (according to whatever tradition). However, I see no reason to condemn someone for having reasonable confidence that they have a right standing with God. For the apostle John himself wrote so that Christians "might know that you have eternal life." So it must be possible to have reasonable assurance that one has a right standing with God.

I agree wholeheartedly. I have no problem whatsoever with ratioinactive believing that he has a right standing with God. What I object to is his implication that I don't. If I've been too hard on him, I'm sorry. But it would be interesting to hear his response to these two questions:

1. Am I a Christian if I do not believe in the Trinity, as long as I believe everything the Bible has to say about the Father, the Son, and the Holy Ghost?

2. Am I a Christian if I believe that my faithfulness to Jesus Christ is the only true measure of my degree of faith in Jesus Christ, and that if I consistently fail to repent of my sins, my faith will get me no where?

 

[Katzpur]

so, "God said in genesis let US create man" who was he talking to? and, the verse that said " everything was created through him" why didnt he say through me if they are one?

You're not a Trinitarian?

 

[uss_bigd]

You're not a Trinitarian?

according to the bible, God the father, Jesus, and the holy spirit are three different entities. as portrayed in Jesus' baptism in the Jordan river.and as would basic logic suggest.

 

[Katzpur]

according to the bible, God the father, Jesus, and the holy spirit are three different entities. as portrayed in Jesus' baptism in the Jordan river.and as would basic logic suggest.

Well, what do you know. It appears that your church and mine both agree on this point.

 

[Captain Civic]

Well, what do you know. It appears that your church and mine both agree on this point.

That's what bugs me about the church. Because you're non-trinitarian (among other things), people say you're not a real Christian. But you believe in the deity and authority of Christ. That's all that should matter, right?

 

[uss_bigd]

That's what bugs me about the church. Because you're non-trinitarian (among other things), people say you're not a real Christian. But you believe in the deity and authority of Christ. That's all that should matter, right?

What matters is we follow the bible.... we shouldn't choose what to beleive....

 

[Jeremy Mason]

Good point, this is my point in my first question to the forum, " Christianity and the Word of God." Check it out.

 

[Katzpur]

That's what bugs me about the church. Because you're non-trinitarian (among other things), people say you're not a real Christian. But you believe in the deity and authority of Christ. That's all that should matter, right?

That's right. We believe in the deity and authority of Christ. We believe that He is our Savior and that it is through Him alone that we can be reconciled to our Father in Heaven. To me, that's the important thing.

 

[Dunemeister]

so, "God said in genesis let US create man" who was he talking to?
and, the verse that said " everything was created through him" why didnt he say through me if they are one?

so coffee with cream means coffee is the same as cream??

Coffee and cream do not provide a good analogy for what Christians are saying when they talk about the Trinity. I can't be more clear than the Athanasian Creed.

I agree fully that the Trinity is paradoxical. Unfortunately, we as Christians must live with this tension because, like it or not, the bible makes the following claims:

1. There is only one divine being.
2. The Father is divine.
3. The Son is divine in the same sense that the Father is divine.
4. The Holy Spirit is divine in the same sense that the Father and the Son are divine.
5. The Father, Son, and Holy Spirit are distinct "persons." (Unfortunately, the church literally had to invent a concept here in order to get at what is going on, so the English word "person" is wholly inadequate. But it's what we've got. Sigh.)

So, the Church eventually settled on the idea that there is one divine substance/entity/being, but three distinct persons who "share" (is that the right word?) that divinity, which belongs to God alone. The theological concept that eventually developed was the trinity.

It's also well to note that this formulation arose as a result of intense controversy within the church. In the early centuries, the Church had to decide between three options: trinitarianism (what I've just described, championed by Athanasius), modalism -- the idea that there is one god who visits his people in three different modes or fashions, and Arianism -- the idea that there is only on god and therefore there is no possible sense in which Jesus could be anything more than a human. Indeed, Arianism was the more popular option, even beyond the Council of Nicea which decided in favor of trinitarianism. However, trinitarianism eventually won out for various reasons, including the fact that the position simply reflects best what scripture says.

So, here is a trinitarian interpretation of the sayings you present.

"God said in genesis let US create man" who was he talking to?

No matter how you look at it, this is a puzzle. If God is unitarian (not a trinity), we still have the question who he was addressing. A unitarian might say that he was addressing the angels. In fact, many do say that. Even many trinitarians say that. However, God says, let US. So is he suggesting that the angels get down to the business of creating people? Not likely, for God is the only creator. Thus the US must refer to the Triune God. Thus the persons of the trinity are addressing each other.

We should also keep in mind that this passage was written by highly unitarian Jews. In that case, what could the "us" possibly mean? Scholars have suggested that the "us" is similar to the "royal we." Royalty would often refer to themselves in the plural as a way of implying their magnificence and supremacy. It seems logical to think that God is speaking in that way here. In that case, God (whether trinitarian or not) is speaking of his own intentions. Who is he speaking to? Jews would hold that he was speaking to the "heavenly court" or the angels.

and, the verse that said " everything was created through him" why didnt he say through me if they are one?

Paul was speaking there, so of course he wouldn't say "through me". I assume you meant, "Why didn't he say through them?" Well perhaps Paul was speaking of the Triune God, not picking out any of the persons. That would be legitimate, wouldn't it? It would be just as legitimate to say "through Jesus" or "through the Father" or "through the Holy Spirit." However, in the context of the verse, "him" refers to Jesus. Paul is arguing for the supremacy of Jesus in this passage. So to call out the Father or the Holy Spirit here would not be appropriate.

 

[uss_bigd]

Coffee and cream do not provide a good analogy for what Christians are saying when they talk about the Trinity. I can't be more clear than the Athanasian Creed.

I agree fully that the Trinity is paradoxical. Unfortunately, we as Christians must live with this tension because, like it or not, the bible makes the following claims:

1. There is only one divine being.
2. The Father is divine.
3. The Son is divine in the same sense that the Father is divine.
4. The Holy Spirit is divine in the same sense that the Father and the Son are divine.
5. The Father, Son, and Holy Spirit are distinct "persons." (Unfortunately, the church literally had to invent a concept here in order to get at what is going on, so the English word "person" is wholly inadequate. But it's what we've got. Sigh.)

So, the Church eventually settled on the idea that there is one divine substance/entity/being, but three distinct persons who "share" (is that the right word?) that divinity, which belongs to God alone. The theological concept that eventually developed was the trinity.

It's also well to note that this formulation arose as a result of intense controversy within the church. In the early centuries, the Church had to decide between three options: trinitarianism (what I've just described, championed by Athanasius), modalism -- the idea that there is one god who visits his people in three different modes or fashions, and Arianism -- the idea that there is only on god and therefore there is no possible sense in which Jesus could be anything more than a human. Indeed, Arianism was the more popular option, even beyond the Council of Nicea which decided in favor of trinitarianism. However, trinitarianism eventually won out for various reasons, including the fact that the position simply reflects best what scripture says.

So, here is a trinitarian interpretation of the sayings you present.

"God said in genesis let US create man" who was he talking to?

No matter how you look at it, this is a puzzle. If God is unitarian (not a trinity), we still have the question who he was addressing. A unitarian might say that he was addressing the angels. In fact, many do say that. Even many trinitarians say that. However, God says, let US. So is he suggesting that the angels get down to the business of creating people? Not likely, for God is the only creator. Thus the US must refer to the Triune God. Thus the persons of the trinity are addressing each other.

We should also keep in mind that this passage was written by highly unitarian Jews. In that case, what could the "us" possibly mean? Scholars have suggested that the "us" is similar to the "royal we." Royalty would often refer to themselves in the plural as a way of implying their magnificence and supremacy. It seems logical to think that God is speaking in that way here. In that case, God (whether trinitarian or not) is speaking of his own intentions. Who is he speaking to? Jews would hold that he was speaking to the "heavenly court" or the angels.

and, the verse that said " everything was created through him" why didnt he say through me if they are one?

Paul was speaking there, so of course he wouldn't say "through me". I assume you meant, "Why didn't he say through them?" Well perhaps Paul was speaking of the Triune God, not picking out any of the persons. That would be legitimate, wouldn't it? It would be just as legitimate to say "through Jesus" or "through the Father" or "through the Holy Spirit." However, in the context of the verse, "him" refers to Jesus. Paul is arguing for the supremacy of Jesus in this passage. So to call out the Father or the Holy Spirit here would not be appropriate.

you are distortng english grammar sir .... so when Jesus said the church and i are one ... IN YOUR LOGIC ... if i am a member of the churh i am Jesus ... that is screwed....

 

[Dunemeister]

That's what bugs me about the church. Because you're non-trinitarian (among other things), people say you're not a real Christian. But you believe in the deity and authority of Christ. That's all that should matter, right?

Confess Jesus as Lord. Believe that God raised him from the dead. That done, you will be saved. :yes:

But that isn't the end of the story. One must grow in grace, and part of that is learning and accepting the faith of the apostles, which was formulated (eventually) into the pre-schismatic (catholic) creeds. If one resolutely resists that doctrine, it is legitimate to wonder whether they truly confess Jesus as Lord, for Jesus is the prime author of those creeds.

 

[Katzpur]

Confess Jesus as Lord. Believe that God raised him from the dead. That done, you will be saved. :yes:

Seriously? You don't believe that obedience to God's commandments counts for anything?

But that isn't the end of the story. One must grow in grace, and part of that is learning and accepting the faith of the apostles, which was formulated (eventually) into the pre-schismatic (catholic) creeds. If one resolutely resists that doctrine, it is legitimate to wonder whether they truly confess Jesus as Lord, for Jesus is the prime author of those creeds.

By "that doctrine," are you referring to the Creeds (Apostles, Nicene and Athanasian)? Truly, I don't believe Jesus would recognize himself in the Creeds. Can you give me one statement by any of the Apostles that describes the relationship between the Father and the Son the way the Athanasian Creed does? And are you implying that if a person does, in fact, resist the doctrines taught in the Creeds, that he doesn't confess Jesus as Lord? Why is it not sufficient to confess the Jesus Christ of the Bible?

 

[Dunemeister]

you are distortng english grammar sir .... so when Jesus said the church and i are one ... IN YOUR LOGIC ... if i am a member of the churh i am Jesus ... that is screwed....

Well no, I (or actually, the early Church) am distorting English semantics. Most people assume that "person" implies, or even simply means, "being". One person is one being. Three persons are three beings. Most of the time, and in everyday situations, that's perfectly fine. But when you are talking about God, it's not perfectly fine. In that case, we Christians are using the term "person" in a highly technical sense (in fact, the church coined the term). The sense in which we use "person", when we are talking about God, is such that it does not imply one person = one being.

Back to your quote. In Jesus' high priestly prayer (John 16 - 17), Jesus prays that the church would be one, just as he is in the Father and the Father in him. In that case, since nobody in Christian history (who has been taken seriously) thinks that the church is divine in the same sense as the Father, Son, and Holy Spirit is divine, theologians have concluded that here, Jesus is talking about unity of purpose, unity of love. A look at the rest of the prayer confirms this. Jesus is praying that the church would be united on the basis of love. If you read the whole Gospel of John with this in mind, the whole gospel takes on massive unity, cohesion, and plain good sense.

Believe me, I understand the difficulty that the doctrine of the Trinity poses. I believe it not because I understand it through and through. I believe it because, dammit, it stares me in the face when I read scripture. Besides, there are lots of things I believe even though I don't understand them. Many scientific theories fall into this category for me, for example. I just live with the fact that some things are true even if I can't understand all the logic.

 

[uss_bigd]

theologians have concluded that here, Jesus is talking about unity of purpose, unity of love. A look at the rest of the prayer confirms this. Jesus is praying that the church would be united on the basis of love. If you read the whole Gospel of John with this in mind, the whole gospel takes on massive unity, cohesion, and plain good sense.

has it ever occured to you that Jesus has unity of purpose with the father? and they are not actually one...

besides ... God was taliking to Jesus when he said LET US create man....that make perfect logical sense ... and that .. using your own logic ... when he said "one with church LIKE the father and i are one" you are affirming that Jesus meant "united one" and not absolute one....

he used "LIKE" the father and i are one .....you are contradicting your self

 

[Dunemeister]

Seriously? You don't believe that obedience to God's commandments counts for anything?

It counts for plenty. It just doesn't get you salvation.

By "that doctrine," are you referring to the Creeds (Apostles, Nicene and Athanasian)? Truly, I don't believe Jesus would recognize himself in the Creeds. Can you give me one statement by any of the Apostles that describes the relationship between the Father and the Son the way the Athanasian Creed does? And are you implying that if a person does, in fact, resist the doctrines taught in the Creeds, that he doesn't confess Jesus as Lord? Why is it not sufficient to confess the Jesus Christ of the Bible?

Yes, I'm referring to the creeds. If you don't believe that Jesus would recognize himself in the creeds, that is nothing against my claim. No, I can't give you one statement by the apostles that describes the relationship between the Father, Son, and Holy spirit the way the Athanasian creed does. The biblical writer didn't have the philosophical language of essences, substances, persons, and all that. So nowhere in scripture do we have a trinitarian theory laid out. But we have all the building blocks for it.

The Church used material such as Matthew 28:19 "Go therefore and make disciples of all nations, baptizing them in the name (singular) of the Father, and of the Son, and of the Holy Spirit." In Greek, you repeat the articles (of the) only when you are making distinctions between items. If there were no distinctions, the Greek would read, "...the name (singular) of the Father, Son, and Holy Spirit." This would express the idea that Christians are baptized in the name of one being who is variously called by three titles. On the other hand, if the idea was that there are three gods, the Greek would have said "...the names (plural) of the Father, and of the Son, and of the Holy Spirit." Thus each of the persons mentioned would have distinct and separate names and essences. But that's not what the Greek does. Instead, it says that Christians are baptized into "the name (singular) of the Father, and of the Son, and of the Holy Spirit." This expresses the idea that the Holy Spirit, the Son, and the Father are distinct, but they share the same "name."

So when formulating the creeds, the Church was confronting texts like this and struggling to come to grips with them. Christians are baptized into the singular name (essence) of three "persons" (for lack of a better word). So God is one being, yet three persons are divine (share the one same name). The Church, therefore, could not affirm polytheism (there are many gods) or a simple monotheism such that divinity is denied the Son and the Holy Spirit. Yet the Church had to affirm monotheism. How to skate between the horns of this apparent dilemma? Well, the concept of the trinity does very nicely. The theological formulation of the Athanasian creed makes explicit what is implicit in scripture.

To your second question, why isn't it enough to confess the Jesus of the Bible? Well, it is. But the Jesus of the bible is the very same one confessed through the creeds. To deny the creeds is in fact to deny the witness of scripture to Jesus. So if you resist the creeds, you are, in effect, resisting the biblical witness to Jesus. As a result, you are falling short of confessing Jesus as Lord.

That said, I don't think you need all your theology done up in a neat bow to be converted. At the beginning of your spiritual walk, the content of your confession of Jesus as Lord might be as simple as "Jesus is the Jewish Messiah, which means that he is Lord of the whole world, and I owe him my exclusive allegiance. God has demonstrated this by raising Jesus from the dead. Therefore, in following Jesus as Lord, I do as he said: I repent (turn away from dehumanizing idolatries) and believe in Jesus (trust that Jesus' way of life is the one to which God calls me)." In the process of Christian education, those whom Jesus has truly called will know his voice and will follow him. Among other things, this means that they will eventually come to believe what scripture (the Word of God written) says about him (the Word of God enfleshed).

I really wish you wouldn't pose such penetrating objections. It would save me a great deal of time!

 

[Katzpur]

I really wish you wouldn't pose such penetrating objections. It would save me a great deal of time!

Sorry, it's part of who I am. I enjoyed your post, and intend to comment on it in more depth tomorrow. Right now, though, I must get my beauty sleep. :sleep:

 

[Dunemeister]

has it ever occured to you that Jesus has unity of purpose with the father? and they are not actually one...

Yes it has. Of course the two are united in purpose. I'd also say, though, that he is united in essence with the Father. See my previous post for more on this.

besides ... God was taliking to Jesus when he said LET US create man....that make perfect logical sense ... and that .. using your own logic ... when he said "one with church LIKE the father and i are one" you are affirming that Jesus meant "united one" and not absolute one....

he used "LIKE" the father and i are one .....you are contradicting your self

I'm not contradicting myself. You are correct that there is more than one way for the Father and the Son to be "one." Jesus may have, in this case, meditating on his oneness of purpose with the Father and praying for his church to enjoy the same. In fact, I think that's probably the best reading here. But that idea is perfectly compatible with the idea that the Father and the Son are ALSO one in essence or substance. I use Matthew 28:19 among other passages to argue for that.

As for the Father talking to Jesus at creation, it is well to point out that there was no Jesus then. I think my previous post said all I have to say about how to understand that passage. If you disagree with me, I guess we'll have to agree to disagree.