|
Post by Nothing But the Blood on Apr 28, 2009 18:55:17 GMT -8
I don't know Greek. Douglas? Want to chime in here? Sounds pretty ridiculous to me, especially considering it wouldn't make any sense of the context, like you said. Some denominations are trying to change this so that their statements of faith, or maybe even Bible translations will read "a way" instead of "the way." My sister had a friend whose church was considering doing this....and this was a mainline denomination! People in today's society cannot accept what the Bible actually says. Since I don't know Greek, I cannot make a statement in defense of "the way" translation, besides appealing to context. I don't know how they deal with the second part of the verse which says, "no one comes to the Father except through Me."
|
|
|
Post by christopher on Apr 28, 2009 21:06:35 GMT -8
Hi NBTB (can I call you that ;D ),
you wrote:
I'm wondering what your take is on the council of Nicea. If this is so crystal clear in scripture, why was there so much debate about it among very learned scholars of that time? Why is that some Christians were embraced as brethren prior to Nicea and then condemned as anathemitized heretics after?
I ask this as a someone who embraces the Trinity as the best explanation of the nature of God. But the language of the creed still fall miserably short IMO and, like Josh, I know true Christians who have a slightly different view on it than that. I'm not prepared to say they don't love and obey Jesus the same as I do.
Besides, if God thought the doctrine all that important, do you not think He could have done better communicating it much more clearly in His word? (BTW, I'm not talking about our English versions with all the built in theological biases of the translators here)
I'm not sure He's all that fired up about it.
|
|
|
Post by Nothing But the Blood on Apr 29, 2009 5:26:41 GMT -8
Hi NBTB (can I call you that ;D ), Yes, you can call me that. In my opinion, Nicea itself has nothing to do with it. Yes, I know that at the Council, the Nicene Creed was formulated, and those who did not agree with it were condemned as heretics after. But what I mean by Nicea has nothing to do with it is this -- we need to ask ourselves what Scripture says. It does not matter what the Council of Nicea decided. What matters is what Scripture says. I believe the concept of the Trinity is derived from Scripture itself. I also do not believe that just because there was a debate about it among learned scholars that it means that the belief is not clearly defined in Scripture. If we all went by that logic, then anything and everything is a Christian viewpoint. There are many learned scholars who deny that Jesus even existed. There are learned scholars who deny that Jesus rose bodily from the dead. There are learned scholars who deny that Jesus' death was a sacrifice. There are learned scholars who say that there is no such thing as sin. There are learned scholars who say that Jesus is not the Jewish Messiah. There are learned scholars who say Jesus is not coming back. There are learned scholars who say that Jesus is not the only way. I could go on. This is the reason that we need to have creeds and statements of faith. If we don't, then anyone who believes anything can claim it as a Christian belief. There has to be a line somewhere that defines what is and what is not Christian orthodoxy. The ironic thing is that in today's society, we are starting to go back to the way things were before Nicea. All viewpoints are welcome as Christian. If people don't hold to sound doctrine (and this is a biblical term "sound doctrine" -- the very suggestion of sound doctrine implies that there are bounds of the Christian faith), then the church will stand for nothing. There is a huge difference between Jesus being God and Jesus being a created thing. Both of these viewpoints cannot be right. Either He is God or He isn't. Again, if Jesus is God and people deny His deity, then they are denying God's testimony about Himself. If Jesus is not God, then it would be idolotrous to worship Him and view Him as God. I think the question of Jesus' deity is essential to Christianity. If it's not essential, then that means that it doesn't matter whether someone believes in His deity. Christ's own exclusive claims would be meaningless. To call Jesus Lord would be meaningless, as would to call Him Savior. To deny Jesus' deity would change the entire meaning of Christianity. I'm not saying that the language of the creed is perfect. I'm simply talking about the concept of the Trinity being biblical. I'm also not saying that those who deny the Trinity do not love and obey Jesus the same as I do. What I'm saying is I don't understand....I can't comprehend how it is possible. I"m not denying it. I also struggle with certain Scriptures that Jesus Himself said. I struggle with them because I don't see how someone who denies Jesus' deity can have the Holy Spirit. This is not the same thing as saying they do not have the Holy Spirit or that they are not saved. As I said before, that is up to God, not me. If they are saved, I struggle understanding how they can be because I would think the Holy Spirit would lead them to the place where they would acknowledge Jesus as God. I'm not condemning anyone. I'm not the one who condemns people. I'm just saying that I, as a human, cannot understand how people can deny the Trinity and still have the Holy Spirit. Whether or not they are condemned, I still think that the Trinity is essential to Christianity itself. People twist all sorts of Scripture. I'm convinced that even if it was spelled out extremely clearly, such as "God is triune" someone would find a way to argue that that's not really what the phrase meant. My friend who is taking Greek....the same professor who claims that John 14:6 says Jesus is "a way" also claims that John 3:16 isn't referring to Jesus. He's claiming that Jesus was talking about the Father. 16"For God so loved the world, that He gave His only begotten Son, that whoever believes in Him shall not perish, but have eternal life He's saying that the Him that I bolded is referring to the Father and not Jesus. But again, the context of John 3 would suggest to me that he's just interpreting it that way in order to avoid saying that Jesus is the only way. Peter says this about Paul's letters: 2 Peter 3:15and regard the patience of our Lord as salvation; just as also our beloved brother Paul, according to the wisdom given him, wrote to you,16as also in all his letters, speaking in them of these things, in which are some things hard to understand, which the untaught and unstable distort, as they do also the rest of the Scriptures, to their own destruction. Anything in Scripture can be distorted and twisted to make it say whatever anyone wants it to say.
|
|
|
Post by christopher on Apr 29, 2009 9:42:19 GMT -8
Hi NBTB, I hear and agree with much what you're saying. But what I'm getting at is that there are bible believing Christians that take the whole of scripture as inspired and authoritative that see things different on this issue. A different view of the Trinity doesn't necessitate a denial of Christs' deity (take Oneness for instance). I only have a few minutes, but there are a couple quick points I'd like to make here: 1. Most of the liberal views you listed require throwing out large amounts of scripture Jesus Seminar style in order to uphold that viewpoint. That's not the same thing. For example: Your prof must take out the statement in Acts 4:12 for his view to work, no matter how much 'greek' you bring to it. The context allows nobody other than Jesus of Nazereth to be in view there. So my point was, that Nicea included many Christians who held a high view of the scriptures and they disagreed about the interpretation. In fact, if memory serves me correctly, the council was nearly swayed toward Arius with only Athanacious (sp?) standing for the Trinity (feel free to correct me if my memory is deceiving me here). I'm saying that good and godly men who are true to the scriptures can disagree about very difficult concepts such as the Trinity. 2. I agree that "sound doctrine" is a biblical term, but it's never used to describe abstract concepts like the Trinity, it's always about character and conduct and obeying the commands of Jesus. 3. This conversation is actually deja vu on this very thread , so I would be simply repeating myself to go much further with this. Josh and I had this discussion about a year and a half ago. I don't mind if you want answer some of the points that were raised back then, but I'm going to pass on starting over. I just wanted to raise the point that Christians tend to define "orthodoxy" MUCH more narrowly than Jesus ever did. And it can be tragically divisive IMO.
|
|
|
Post by Josh on Apr 29, 2009 15:22:14 GMT -8
NBTB- I know this thread is laboriously long, (and don't blame you in the least for not having it all thoroughly perused*) but Chris is right, you'll probably find a lot of this topic well dug into on the previous pages. And I'd venture to guess you'll relate more to my side of the argument ;D It's ironic to me that you see this as a bad thing. The church saw some of it's most authentic, dynamic growth ever before Nicea. Remember, though, that though there was a fair amount of theological diversity before Nicea, there still was a core of essential beliefs and practices about Christianity, and there also was healthy debate, something which was increasingly squelched after Nicea. Don't get me wrong. I'm much more of a fan of Nicea that Chris is, btw. Which is why hermeneutics is so important, right? Good exegisis limits the options of interpretation of a particular passage. But even with sound exegesis there will always be gray areas. *heck, we never even assumed someone would finally be jumping onto this thread with us in the first place, so we're happy.
|
|
|
Post by Nothing But the Blood on Apr 29, 2009 15:36:21 GMT -8
Hi NBTB, I hear and agree with much what you're saying. But what I'm getting at is that there are bible believing Christians that take the whole of scripture as inspired and authoritative that see things different on this issue. A different view of the Trinity doesn't necessitate a denial of Christs' deity (take Oneness for instance). I apologize if I was not being clear here....I have been talking about two different things -- denial of the trinity.....and denial of the Trinity, including Jesus' deity. I was speaking specifically about those who do not believe in the Trinity AND who don't believe in Jesus' deity for most of my posts. Yes, I do know of the Oneness viewpoint, and I do know that they deny the Trinity while still upholding Jesus' deity. I do not have as much a problem with Oneness Pentecostals because at least they do believe in His deity. However, I still think that their viewpoint is wrong. Those who deny Jesus' full deity are faced with one of two options: there is more than one God or they have to ignore/explain away all the passages that refer to Jesus as God Oneness Pentecostals also must ignore some Scripture -- they have to ignore all the Passages that in which the three persons are distinguished. Jesus made plenty of I AM statements and there are lots of Scripture that call Him God. I don't see how a person can read Scripture and not see who Jesus is. The Oneness viewpoint is a little more understandable....though is still makes little sense when Jesus is praying to the Father....or when Jesus talks about being sent by the Father, or when He says that He will ask the Father to send another, the Holy Spirit....or when all three Persons appear in Scripture, like at Jesus' baptism Scripture itself seems to point to Jesus' deity. I don't see unitarians as having any excuses. All viewpoints that deny Jesus' deity require ignoring or throwing out some Scripture. Just as with anything theological, the liberals are just as convinced that they are right and being true to the Bible as were Arius and his followers, and as are JW's today. Just because someone is convinced that they are following Scripture and are right does not mean that they are. The Jesus Seminar Sigh....we had John Shelby Spong come here last semester. One of my professors was on the Jesus Seminar and he proudly said he voted black on everything. The former NT professor at this school, though I never had him, I heard was also on the Jesus Seminar. He taught students on campus that John was a bunch of crap, as were all of Paul's letters. I don't know if he even cares about Acts. When I took NT with him, we spent very little, if any time on it. We only studied the Gospels and Paul's letters. I have no idea what he would do with Acts 4:12. He would probably try to say it was talking about the Father or something. My other friend had a different NT professor last summer, and he denied that Jesus ever existed. He also told them that all of the passages he didn't agree with were added in later. That's how he gets around it. I don't know how he can justify doing this. The liberals at my school would claim to hold a high view of Scripture. And they are fully convinced that they have interpreted it correctly. I don't know how many at the Council were on each side. I would have to look it up. I don't really want to debate this any further. I feel that I have said enough. We both believe in the Trinity, but we have different ideas about how important it is.
|
|
|
Post by yeshuafreak on Apr 29, 2009 15:41:57 GMT -8
well, to add a new twist to the convo- shaul had his own traditions he spoke of. he told the corinthians to keep the traditions he passed down to them (like oral law). also, most of Shauls gospel message was taught orally (preaching). the closest thing we get to the basics of his theology is romans, in which he doesnt go in depth, but only gives an overview so that he an get into more specifics when he got to rome.
also, the ekklesian hiierarchy (arch-bishop, bishop, deacon, etc) was recorded by many church fathers. also, 1 clement records that shaul appointed his 'firstfruits' (the people that were first converted under him) as the bishops, and then implies he gave them a list of people to succeed that bishop when he died.
i think that organization of the assembly is important to messianic religions.
shalom- john
|
|
|
Post by Josh on Apr 29, 2009 16:42:25 GMT -8
NBTB- If you are as vexed about the Jesus Seminar as I am, then I'd really like to recommend a book entitled The Meaning of Jesus. One of the scholars on the Jesus Seminar is a professor at Oregon State University. His name is Marcus Borg. Several years ago, he and N.T. Wright wrote The Meaning of Jesus together. It's a liberal vs. historically orthodox collection of debate essays on essential Christian doctrines. In my opinion, NT Wright kicks Borg's butt.* I was very pleasantly surprised to first find the book being used as a college textbook at Portland State University. It's so good, every apologist needs it in their library. In fact, I'll send you a copy if you can't afford one, it's that good. *They're friends, by the way, though their views are often diametrically opposed to each other, however, and have apparently toured with their debates.
|
|
|
Post by Josh on Apr 29, 2009 16:43:53 GMT -8
Yeshuafreak:
Your comments are duly noted. No doubt the apostles passed on oral tradition as well.
Paul passed on oral tradition in succession to the Greek fathers. But my impression from your proboard is that there is deep skepticism about the Greek fathers among messianics. Doesn't this argument of yours (the weight of oral tradition) mitigate against that skepticism to some degree?
|
|
|
Post by Nothing But the Blood on Apr 29, 2009 16:59:31 GMT -8
NBTB- If you are as vexed about the Jesus Seminar as I am, then I'd really like to recommend a book entitled The Meaning of Jesus. One of the scholars on the Jesus Seminar is a professor at Oregon State University. His name is Marcus Borg. Several years ago, he and N.T. Wright wrote The Meaning of Jesus together. It's a liberal vs. historically orthodox collection of debate essays on essential Christian doctrines. In my opinion, NT Wright kicks Borg's butt.* I was very pleasantly surprised to first find the book being used as a college textbook at Portland State University. It's so good, every apologist needs it in their library. In fact, I'll send you a copy if you can't afford one, it's that good. *They're friends, by the way, though their views are often diametrically opposed to each other, however, and have apparently toured with their debates. Ah yes....Marcus Borg. We had to read a textbook by him when I was in college. People talk about him a lot at my current school, too. That's pretty cool that a conservative and a liberal wrote a book together, and that they are friends. I'll have to look into this book
|
|
|
Post by Nothing But the Blood on Apr 30, 2009 8:05:01 GMT -8
|
|
|
Post by yeshuafreak on Apr 30, 2009 11:06:54 GMT -8
i dont think that the church fathers were the ones that Shaul passed oral tradition to. i think those wonderful scholars found some of it out, but i dont think they were the ones that actually got the firsthand account (save a select few). i personally dont have THAT big of a problem with the greek fathers. they have good theology and bad theology. but if they had not done what they did, christianity wouldnt be nearlyas organized, etc. and i have a problem with alot of christian doctrine, but if it was not for chrstianity, 1/3 of the world might not have known Yeshua as the mashiach.
i have a problem with how the irish poluted christianity even more by adding a few of their pagan traditions... but the irish SAVED christianity (threes a book about this.)
so for christianity, the greek fathers, the irish, etc... i dont have a problem with them as people, and i recognize the good they have done for the world and the ultimate message - one which we can all unite-: Yeshua is the saviour of the world.
also: i do not believe in the trinity. i saw a post on this, and i dont know if it is a main subject. but if it is, ask me questions about this belief and i will explain why.
also, i havent decided exactly whether to believe in the idea of 'spiritual jew' yet. i have to look more into scripture, greek text, etc before i can.
one last thing: i dont think that law is abolished. this is not the place to discuss it because it is a vast topic, but i think that is the biggest lie that christianity teaches. not that i have a problem with christians, but that i have a problem with some of the doctrine of christianity. but see my other threads on anti-nomotic theology.
|
|
|
Post by Josh on Jan 6, 2010 17:39:04 GMT -8
I didn't know Steve Gregg had posted his own "statement of faith". I like it!
The Narrow Path Radio Broadcast Statement of Faith Steve Gregg, host
The views expressed by me, the host of the radio broadcast, are my own, and not those of an organization or a denomination. Similarly, the views of the host are not necessarily those of the radio stations that carry the program, the callers, or the financial supporters of the ministry. My principal doctrinal views are as follows:
1. I believe in one sovereign God, Creator of all things,1 existing and made known to us as three persons: the Father, the Word and the Holy Spirit.2 Thus God is in one sense “one”—yet He is, in a different sense, “three.” The traditional terminology speaks of God being “one in essence, three in person.” While the terminology is extrabiblical, I find no reason to object to it. A lucid explanation of these facts is not granted to us in the Bible, and probably cannot be fully comprehended by finite minds.3
2. I believe that Jesus of Nazareth is the Word made flesh,4 and is thus uniquely the Son of God,5 born of the virgin Mary.6 He is the Messiah, or Christ, predicted in the Hebrew scriptures.7 He lived a life free of sin,8 which qualified Him to give Himself in man’s place, an atoning sacrifice for the sins of the world.9 This He did when He died on the cross,10 after which He arose bodily from the grave, appeared to many alive again, and ascended into heaven to be enthroned at the right hand of God the Father.11
3. I believe that the gospel of the kingdom of God12 is the happy message that God has made Christ to be King of Kings and Lord of Lords.13 Through faith in Him,14 by virtue of the atoning merits of His blood,15 sinners may be reconciled to God.16 Through the power of His resurrection, justified sinners experience regeneration17and translation into His kingdom,18 where they enjoy righteousness, peace and joy in the Holy Spirit.19 Regeneration also involves the granting of the Holy Spirit to dwell in, to guide and to empower the believer.20
4. I believe that the believer in Christ is called to be a disciple,21 that is, a learner and follower of Christ.22 Discipleship involves obedience to the commands of Christ,23 resulting ultimately, through the inward working of the Holy Spirit, in personal transformation of the disciple into the image and likeness of the Master.24
5. I believe that the Jewish and Christian scriptures of the Old and New Testament are given by inspiration of God, and are thus, when properly understood and applied, profitable and authoritative to the disciple in all matters pertaining to life and godliness.25
6. I believe in the unity of the whole church of the living God,26 which is God’s family,27 Christ’s Body28 and the Holy Spirit’s habitation29 among men. I believe that I should receive as brethren all who sincerely embrace Christ as Lord.30 I believe there is no valid reason to divide the church institutionally into separate fellowships defined by differences in particular theological convictions, much less by loyalties to men or systems of thought.31 I believe that to define the fellowship of the saints more narrowly than God does is sin.32
7. I believe that, at the end of the age, Christ will physically and personally return to judge the living and the dead.33 I believe that the dead will be raised and the living saints caught up to meet the Lord at His coming.34 Those who are Christ’s at His coming will be granted eternal life,35 while those not found written in the book of life shall be cast into the lake of fire.36
1 Genesis 1:1 / Isaiah 33:6 / Isaiah 42:5 / Revelation 4:11 2 Matthew 28:19 / 2 Corinthians 13:14 / 1 Peter 1:2 3 Psalm 131:1 / 1 Corinthians 13:12 4 John 1:14 5 Luke 1:35 / Romans 1:3-4 / 1 John 4:15 6 Isaiah 7:14 / Matthew 1:20-23 / Luke 1:34 7 Luke 2:11 / Acts 9:22 / 1 John 2:22; 5:1 8 2 Corinthians 5:21 / Hebrews 4:15 9 John 1:29 / 1 Timothy 2:6 / 1 John 2:2 / Revelation 5:9 10 Ephesians 2:16 / Colossians 1:20; 2:14 / 1 Peter 2:24 11 Acts 2:30-34; 4:10-12; 10:40-42; 13:30-34 / Revelation 3:21 12 Mark 1:14-15 / Matthew 24:14 13 Acts 2:36; 17:7 / 1 Timothy 6:15 14 John 20:31 / Acts 10:43; 13:39 / Romans 3:28 15 Romans 5:9 / Ephesians 1:7 / Colossians 1:20 / 1 John 1:7 / Revelation 1:5 16 Romans 5:10 / 2 Corinthians 5:19-20 17 Colossians 2:12-13 / 1 Peter 1:3 18 Colossians 1:13 19 Romans 14:17 20 John 7:37-39 / Acts 1:8; 2:38 / Romans 8:9, 14, 26 / 1 John 4:13 21 Luke 14:26, 27, 33 / John 13:35; 15:8 / Acts 11:26 22 Matthew 11:28-29 / Mark 4:34 23 Matthew 28:19-20 / John 8:31 24 Luke 6:40 / Romans 8:29 / 2 Corinthians 3:18 / Galatians 4:19 25 2 Timothy 3:16-17 / 2 Peter 1:3, 20-21 26 Eph.4:3-6 / 1 Corinthians 1:10 / John 17:20-21 27 Eph.2:19; 3:14-15 / 1 John 3:2; 5:10 28 1 Corinthians 12:12-13, 27 / Eph.1:22-23; 4:16 29 Eph.2:22/ 1 Corinthians 3:16 / 1 Peter 2:5 30 Romans 14:10; 15:7/ Acts 10:15, 28 / 1 Cor.12:14-22 31 1 Corinthians 1:12-13 32 1 Corinthians 3:3-4; 12:25 33 Matthew 25:31ff / Acts 1:11 / 2 Timothy 4:1 34 John 5:28-29; 6:39, 40, 44, 54; 11:25-26 / 1 Corinthians 15:52 / 1 Thessalonians 4:16-17 35 Matthew 19:29; 25:46 / Romans 2:7 / 1 John 2:25 36 Matthew 25:41, 46 / Revelation 14:10-11; 20:15
|
|
|
Post by freebirdro on Feb 24, 2010 18:39:31 GMT -8
CAN A short list be? ;
ALL HUMANS THAT LOVE GOD AND PEOPLE ?
PS. THE DEGREE IS IRELEVANT?
|
|
|
Post by freebirdro on Feb 24, 2010 18:46:17 GMT -8
IT BOTHERS ME HOW MUCH TIME, AND ENERGY WE SPEND ON DIFFERENCES AND HOW LITTLE WE ACT ON OUR SIMILARITIES, I MEAN CAN U IMAGINE IF WERE UNITED ,WHAT A FORCE THAT CAN BE? AND INSTEAD OF TALKING ABOUT WHAT CHURCH WE ARE GOING TOO, WE COULD ACTUALY DO SOMETHING PRACTICAL?
|
|
|
Post by Josh on Feb 24, 2010 20:01:16 GMT -8
CAN A short list be? ; ALL HUMANS THAT LOVE GOD AND PEOPLE ? PS. THE DEGREE IS IRELEVANT? What about Jesus? I mean, this could equally apply to Muslims, Jews, and other religious people. How is this uniquely Christian?
|
|
|
Post by Josh on Jan 29, 2012 19:58:49 GMT -8
Chris suggested an exercise in his teaching- compiled a personal list of the doctrinal beliefs you consider to be essential to Christianity- and then comparing it with others.
This thread is along those lines- we'd love to hear anyone chime in.
|
|