The Evangelical Universalist Forum

Does Julie think Jesus is God? How will Evangelicals react?

Theology Christology
#81

This has become quite the discussion. :slight_smile: Guess you’re pretty popular here, Julie. :slight_smile:
Well, after all the discussion, I’m still open to both sides, but I have to admit that I still lean more toward being Trinitarian, because Jesus being the God-man resonates with me and makes a whole lot of sense to me. :slight_smile:
I mean, the New Testament speaks about Jesus in very worshipful terms, and even the Old Testament in some of its Messianic passages does the same, and one can’t really get around that.
I like what Julie said though about how none of us have all the answers and have it all figured out.
The way I look at it is that there is God the Father, there is the Lord Jesus, there is the Holy Spirit… and we know that each is involved deeply and powerfully in our lives, in our hearts, and in our redemption and in our restoration.
I believe that each of these which we read about in the Scripture is divine, in the sense that they are far more than animal, or human (with the exception of Jesus Christ, who I believe when on earth was also human, as well as divine, and may still be human as well [in a resurrected state, of course], for all we know… ), or angel…
How these three which the Scriptures point to work together, none of us knows for absolutely sure.
I wouldn’t be surprised in the least if neither the ‘orthodox’ Trinitarian view or any other view is completely right.
I know this may sound a bit blasphemous, but I wonder if God lets us play around with these ideas a bit… that He lets us form our creeds, our doctrines, about His nature, so we have a chance to use our imagination some… maybe like a father He wants His children to explore and wonder about things, even their Creator… chase after the mystery, so to speak…
If we go too far, to the point where we mess with God’s character, or deny that Jesus is the Messiah, our Savior and King, or don’t acknowledge the role of the Holy Spirit in our lives (which some do, and I know I’ve done at times), that sort of thing, then God can step in and correct us, but maybe He’s more patient and good-humored about all of this then we may realize.
Maybe when we meet the LORD face-to-face, He will say something like this ‘No no, my dear one. This is actually how it is.’ :slight_smile: I recall something C.S. Lewis said once, about how probably half our questions and concerns are pretty much nonsensical. There may be something to that.
I mean, I don’t have a problem with the complexity of the Trinity. Just because the idea is complex and hard to understand doesn’t mean it isn’t true. Life itself is often complex and hard to understand, so that wouldn’t surprise me.
Or, again to paraphrase Lewis, ‘if life is crazy, why not the truth?’
But if you examine, heck, if I examine, all the stuff I just said about God, about Jesus, about the Holy Spirit, I don’t even know what language to use. I don’t even know what I’m talking about. :laughing:
That’s because this is a mystery. The revealed things belong to man (i.e. the character of God, or who God is… God is Love, we can know this for sure), and the hidden things belong to God (i.e. the nature of God, or what God is… could be ‘the Trinity’, or could be…?).
I think that God wants us to search for answers, for understanding, when it comes to questions of theology… but, when we hit a wall, we should stop and either think things through from another angle, or just trust God with the details. :slight_smile:
‘Trust in the Lord with all of your heart, and lean not on your own understanding.’
I believe we can lean on His instead. :slight_smile: God knows who He is and what He is and sometimes that’s all we need to know.
And that He loves us unconditionally and we can trust Him completely. :slight_smile:

May you all be richly blessed :slight_smile:

Matt

#82

Julie, excellent. I totally agree with you regarding the importance of being open to being wrong. Truly, it’s the only way we can really learn and grow.

Please, I hope you’ll come back in Decemeber and we’ll create a featured forum for everyone to engage you on this matter. I have found that no matter what side of the fence you fall on, we learn from each other. I believe it takes years for us to evolve our views but that evolution is happening in real time through smaller pieces. So please, if possible make some time in Dec or whenever you can to engage the community.

Currently, a few of us have engaged with some members here like TV, Stand in Awe and Kelly who believe the torah still needs to be followed. What matters so much to me is how much we learn about the nuances and disctinctions which really are hard to get at. Even after understanding their view, it’s hard for me to not caricature their view because my view is so embedded into me. But what’s great is that we all can discuss it in love and respect. Even when we seem to hurt each other by some rather blaring statements, we find out the other person did not mean it as such and it’s SO WONDERFUL to have such minds that are open to dialoging on these differences.

For everyone else, I hope you’re as excited as I am that Julie will share her journey with us even if it’s wrong. What would Jesus do? (LOL I know that question frustrates some people) but seriously, would Jesus hush her up or listen? And if she was wrong would he backhand her? Or would he gently put his arm around her and begin her on a new journey? I believe the latter and WERE ALL LIKE THIS - we all have things we’re wrong about.

Thanks for the time and effort you’ve put into your book and again, I hope you’ll take on the discussion in Dec.

Aug

#83

The language used for Trinitarian ontology may well be the best formulation. It certainly beautifully fits the story that I was always taught. But my past comments were aimmed at these repeated arguments that it “resonates with me,” “I am deeply convinced,” “it makes the most sense to me,” or Bob’s “The story works far, far better when we read it” that way. I do appreciate the sincere testimony in reporting that this is why an interpretation commends itself to us.

But at the risk of showing that I am intellectually kaput, don’t we need to admit that these subjective verdicts may result from the fact that this is the way the formulated story was taught and ingrained to us**?** Of course it will sound right to us! But many outsiders feel like the same concepts (a man is God) are innately problematic, just as most traditionalists feel like the universalist story does not make sense of the storyline, which from their vantage point would then seem not to work at all. My only point is that when two people ‘resonate’ with different things, an argument must be more completely fleshed out, in order for the person who’s not already convinced to grapple with it.

#84

Bob: Hey Bob :slight_smile: I confess, being objective isn’t my strong point. :neutral_face: And like I said in an earlier post, I’m more of a poet than an intellectual. :slight_smile: I mean, I could use some logic and reason to defend my beliefs, but then it would only be my own understanding of what is logical and what is reasonable, etc, etc, etc.
I think when it comes right down to it, no human being is capable of being 100% objective, or capable of fleshing everything out in a way that someone else will understand in the exact same way they do. For us, it’s simply not possible.
We’re stuck inside our own skins and can only think and feel from one perspective, and there will always be some variation between us, whether great or small, and none of us are gonna be 100% right about everything…
We all, like Paul said, ‘see through a glass darkly’.
As far as I know, only God has the capacity of being 100% objective, being omnipresent and omniscient and all. :slight_smile:
But that doesn’t mean we can’t learn to be a little more objective, try to gain a little more perspective, or broaden our view a bit more… and try to give a better defense for the hope that is within us.
It’s something worth pursuing. :slight_smile:
Thanks for sharing your thoughts, man. And by the way, what you have to say resonates with me. :laughing:

Blessings to you :slight_smile:

Matt

#85

Hey, Bob

I’m not one of the resonators, but I suppose my post may have sounded that way. No, I spent several years looking into this, but I’m no scholar/intellectual, etc. I read some of the posts here and while I more or less understand them, I have a hard time paying close enough attention to follow the thread of logic. I expect they’re great and I’m extremely grateful for brothers and sisters who do think that way, but that’s not the way God made me.

I’ll leave it to the scholars to lay out a systematic theology, and many of them have and will continue to do so, and I admire and appreciate these brothers and sisters – well, to be honest, mostly brothers. I couldn’t do it the way they do, but if you really want to know why I believe the way I do . . . first, off, this is what I believe God has led me to believe. Granted, this goes against what Julie believes God has led her to believe, and that often happens. I respect her belief that God has led her to believe this, and I’m in no position to dispute with her on that subject, and I wouldn’t dream of telling her she’s heard incorrectly. However, that’s not what God has said to me, not only subjectively, but by my understanding of scripture.

So, on the less subjective level of scripture, Jesus is repeatedly shown as receiving worship without protest. If you like, I can look up the references, but I think you most likely know that this is the case. He receives worship during His time as a man on the earth, and many people (myself included) believe that He also received worship in His pre-incarnate state in Old Testament accounts. We know that “No one has ever seen God. The One and Only Son-- the One who is at the Father’s side-- He has revealed Him.” (John 1:18 HCSB) So the people who did see the LORD in the Old Testament weren’t seeing God the Father. They made offerings, offered worship to Him. Who were they worshiping?

Sometimes the person receiving the worship is identified as an angel or the “Captain of the Lord’s host.” But holy angels (in the sense of spiritual beings created by God to serve Him and those who are the heirs of salvation), whether warlike or peaceful messengers, do not accept worship.

Then we have John seeing Jesus, as the Lamb, as though it had been slain, jointly receiving worship with God the Father in the Revelation. In Hebrews, God the Father Himself commands all of His angels to worship the Son:

And there’s more. Here is the remainder of the chapter:

I feel certain that these arguments from scripture don’t take Julie by surprise. She’s an extremely well-read and well-studied lady, and I realize that there are arguments counter to these scriptures, however, I’m content to see Jesus as God the Son on the basis of this evidence and on the witness of history that He was worshiped by the early church. I didn’t see fit to lay it all out in merely stating my opinion because I wasn’t attempting to convince anyone, but I do have reasons for my beliefs beyond the idea that they resonate with me.

I’m not even going to talk about the things Jesus said that lead me to believe He Himself fully believed Himself to be fully God. This post is already long enough, but to give scripture the final word:

#86

Jason, you still don’t seem to understand the historic position of the first and second century church. It was not Unitarianism; it was not Binitarianism, and it was not Trinitarianism, and it was not Modalism. These four are not collectively exhaustive.

  1. Trinitarianism affirms that GOD is three divine Persons, a compound GOD, or as JWs blasphemously put it “A Three-Headed Monster”. Nowhere in the Scripture do we find the Word “God” as referring to a Trinity of divine Persons.

  2. Exactly the same objection can be raised against Binitarianism. All we need to change is the number “three” to the number “two”, and “Trinity” to “Binity”. The compound GOD is two divine Persons, rather than three, namely, the Father and the Son.

  3. Unitarianism declares that God is a single Divine Individual, that Jesus is not divine, at least not in the sense that the Father is divine. He may be a lesser deity of some sort.

  4. Modalism declares that God is a single Divine Individual, who expressed Himself in three modes: Father, Son, and Holy Spirit. Some Modalists compare this to an actor who wears three different masks, and plays three different parts.

  5. The Historic Position is that God begat (not created) a divine Son “before all ages”, who in all ways was the image of His Father. When we beget children, our children are human like ourselves. When God begat His Son, His Son was divine like Himself. The word “God” has at least two uses in the New Testament. It usually refers to the Father. When it is prefixed with the article “ho” in Greek with no other modifiers, it ALWAYS refers to the Father. But the word “God” also refers to the essence or “substance” of the Father and the Son. When used in this way it is sometimes stated that the son is “God” in John 1:1 in the sense of being “God-stuff”. John 1:18 (in pre-300 A.D. extant manuscripts) calls Christ the “only-begotten God”. Early Christians emphasized that by contrast the Father was “unbegotten”. Yet, in calling Jesus “the only-begotten God” it is important, not only to distinguish Him from the Father, but to clarify that He is not another God in the sense of Bitheism. He is another divine Individual, but not “another God”.

Yet, one might affirm, that in the sense that Jesus is not the Supreme God, the Historic Position is Unitarian. For we read:

  • For there is one God, and there is one mediator between God and men, the man Christ Jesus… (1 Timothy 2:5)

There is one body and one Spirit–just as you were called to the one hope that belongs to your call-- one Lord, one faith, one baptism, one God and Father of all, who is over all and through all and in all. (Ephesians 4:4-6)

… for us there is one God, the Father, from whom are all things and for whom we exist, and one Lord, Jesus Christ, through whom are all things and through whom we exist. (1 Corinthians 8:6)

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

#87

Paidon, do you believe that Jesus should be worshipped?

#88

Paidion,

Thanks for such an informative post. That sums up in a nutshell many of the perspectives I learned in my studies of historical and Greek perspectives, though I didn’t organize them as neatly as you did :smiley:. This also goes along with the father-son relationship of Eastern societies. The firstborn son’s interaction and word was as good as the father’s in any business deals. He had the same authority and “essence” of his father, yet he was not his father. That is why, even in ME culture today, you are known as either the father (abu) of someone or the son (ibn) of someone.

To answer RedHotMagma…as the firstborn son and King of the ages, I believe He is worthy of worship. However, it appears His worship will come to an end when the Father becomes all in all (1 Cor. 15). As far as I can tell now, that is when His reign as King of the ages ends, when authority is no longer needed and we have all become equals with Christ in the household of God (firstborn among many brothers and sisters). But as Paidion explained, it is not blasphemous to worship Jesus even if He is not His Father. He has been endowed with the rulership, authority, and divinity as the Firstborn Son. In the Hebrew teachings, this is called the “Dominion Mandate.” The divinity comes, as Paidion pointed out, because He is out of the Father and is of the same essence or “genetic material,” if you will. From what we read in Scriptures, we are all being rebirthed into this essence. Jesus is the prototype of what we are becoming as sons and daughters of God, image bearers of our Father.

We are becoming PARTAKERS in the DIVINE NATURE, just as Jesus, the first “out of” (ek) God is of Divine nature.

One thing I have tried to do, both with the doctrine of hell (as you might have read in Raising Hell) and with the doctrine of the Trinity, is to not ignore some passages in order to make others say what I want them to say or fit where I want them to fit. What I’m after now is finding out which understanding or perspective ignores the least number of Scriptures and makes the most sense when incorporating all of them? To me, at least, the doctrine of the Trinity has to ignore a whole lot of Scriptures (and use a lot of imagination) to work out. The new-to-me perspectives do not deny Jesus the power and authority we appreciate about Him as King of the ages, yet they do not necessitate He must be the Most High God. Adding history in the mix was a bonus because it only further affirmed/confirmed what I saw emerging in Scriptures. Also, it is vital to check these passages out in Greek for greater understanding, as so many concepts have been altered or covered up in the English renderings.

I also found a lot of philosophical and practical arguments that shot down the possibility of the Trinity. But of course, that is my own opinion. Perhaps we can share that soon, eh?

Having said

#89

Cindy: I like the way you express yourself. :slight_smile: And I agree that it’s pretty clear (and whatever the case may be about how God the Father, and Jesus Christ, and the Holy Spirit, are in fact interconnected), Jesus is worthy of worship. Scripture makes that pretty clear, and I don’t believe anyone should feel funny about it. :slight_smile:
But then that’s my view. As always, I could be off a bit. And even if it’s right, I shouldn’t judge those who think differently. :slight_smile:

Paidon: What you had to say in point five is really thought-provoking. :slight_smile:

Grace and peace :slight_smile:

#90

Julie: That’s interesting. :slight_smile: I don’t totally understand it, but it kind of makes sense to me, I must admit, especially in light of how the Scriptures say we will all be conformed to the image of Christ, will be co-heirs with Christ, that sort of thing… and it’s encouraging to hear that even according to this view that Jesus is worthy of worship. :slight_smile:
Just to follow where you’re going with this, I think a lot of us are wary of the thought of someday being considered equals with Jesus Christ, which is basically what a lot of passages seem to imply. Perhaps we are sometimes afraid of our God-given potential for greatness? :confused: But it’s all hard to process… this line of thinking is similar to what I’ve heard about Mormonism, how it teaches, from what I’ve heard, that we can become gods (in other words, inheritors of the Divine Nature) … but if that’s basically what the truth is, at least in some sense, then maybe Mormonism is simply a twisted counterfeit version of the truth (teaching a false concept of God’s nature, salvation and transformation and inheritance based on works rather than grace, etc, etc, etc.)? Wonder what your thoughts on this would be? :slight_smile:
The doctrine of the Trinity makes sense to me in some ways, and the view you expressed makes sense to me in other ways.
I guess at this point I’m kind of an agnostic when it comes to all of this. I’m trying to keep an open mind. :slight_smile:
Thanks for sharing, Julie. :slight_smile:

P.S. What’s your view on how the Holy Spirit fits into all of this?

Jason said:

Is your view similar to this, or…? :slight_smile:

#91

Paidon, I’m having trouble understanding your view exactly. You seem to affirm that Yeshua is of the same divine substance of God (5), and reject a unitarian notion that Yeshua could be merely human or less divine than God the Father (3 – though you seem to rescind this later). It also seems that you reject that God could be two divine Persons within the same being – a compound-unity (“Binity”) god (2). But then it seems that you view Yeshua as an entirely separate and begotten individual to God the Father (5). But you also reject bitheism (5). In what sense do you imagine Yeshua to be as divine, separate and equal to God the Father but not to be a person of a compound-unity god or a god amongst more (whilst also rejecting modalism)? In other words, how is Yeshua divine in relation to God the Father? How is He separate to God the Father? And how is He equal to God the Father? I’m sure I’ve entirely misunderstood what you have written, but I would be grateful if you could clarify your position.

Where in scripture does it say we will become equal with the Christ? Or are you saying that lots of passages imply we are wary? :confused:

#92

WAAB: Ah, I probably worded it wrong. :frowning: I think what I was trying to say is that there are passages where it seems to imply that we’ll all share in Christ’s nature. Maybe equal like a husband and a wife are equal, and yet the husband has a position of headship based on love over the wife? (Let’s not go any further into that subject matter. Really touchy. Just to get it out there, I’m open-minded on that subject too, ladies, if any of you are reading this! :slight_smile:)
Haha, I don’t know, I don’t have a clue what I’m talking about. :laughing: I honestly have never had a very clear view or set opinion about these things. I speculate, but I’m never sure.
The doctrine of the Trinity has been important to me for these reasons: So I could believe that God shares in our experience, that Jesus is our Savior and our King, and is worthy of our worship… honestly I don’t understand the doctrine of the Trinity very much, never have, but it’s the only view I’ve been seriously exposed to… because the other views, I was told, were pretty much ‘heresy’… of course, the same was the case with entertaining any kind of universalist view… for years I’ve been afraid of looking into anything that isn’t considered ‘orthodox’… but then in recently finding out that universalism (Christian Universalism, that is) is a valid and strongly supported stance, and that I don’t have to believe in eternal conscious torment or annihilation, either of which, honestly, if I think deeply about them, just make me want to curl up into a ball and cry (and I don’t say that jokingly), and coming to be convinced of this myself, I’m now in a position of wondering what else might be wrong too.
I’m not afraid if a few sacred cows get tipped over so to speak, if looking at things in another way makes more sense, and if I believe that is the direction God is leading me in, or if that’s what He’s showing me.
Julie’s view takes into account all of those things that are important to me that I mentioned, so I was just wondering if it was a valid way of looking at things too.
Basically, WAAB, I’m in flux right now, trying to rethink what I believe. I’m not really sure who I am exactly or who God is exactly or what life is all about exactly right now. Well, I never was, but you probably know what I mean. :neutral_face:
I’m on this crazy journey, and I’ve gone through a lot already, a lot of pain and turmoil and doubt and fear and failure and longing and aching and questions and thousands upon thousands of desperate prayers, and I’m sure I’m going to go through some more.
I try not to be too dogmatic, I was for awhile but it just makes me feel like a jerk.
But at the same time, I pray all the time for discernment, for guidance, that God would help me move in the right direction, towards Him, towards home…
I am a messy person (or at least I feel like one), and there is more that I don’t know then what I do know…
I often feel overwhelmed with the past, the present, the future… with life… I’m thankful, but sometimes I’m scared too…
And yet I’m tired of being afraid of asking questions. I’m tired of being afraid of God.
I’d rather learn how to trust Him more, and to embrace more fully the love so many sources say that He has for me, and learn to love Him back more, and learn to love others more too, including everyone here, including you…
I’m a loner who has played with ideas in his own little world for so long, and I think God is teaching me, very gradually, that this is really all about relationship, with Him, and with others… I can come out of my dark little room into a larger world.
It’s overwhelming, and it’s two steps forward, one step back, but I’m not alone in this…
I don’t know what’s going to happen for sure when I die. I had someone ask me once the classic question ‘if you were to die tonight, would you go to heaven or hell?’ My response now would be the same as it was then.
I don’t know. Only God knows for sure. I don’t have sight right now. I have faith. The things I long for haven’t happened yet. But I can hope for them. I can hope in God, hope in Jesus, even if I don’t have this all figured out, even if I never do.
When I die my hope is that something good will happen, when God has completed His work, His judgment, and not only for this crazy guy whom you’ve never met, but for you, and for all people, throughout human history, as well…
And that before I die, I can have a life worth living, a life that counts for something…
My hope, what my heart tells me even in the midst of all the fluctuating and all the doubts, is that God is good, and that by His grace, in due time, I can be, we all can be, good too.
And this world, this universe, life, will be made new, and will be very, very good. :slight_smile:
This is what I cling to, beyond that, I’ll just keep praying and not give up, and try to keep an open mind. :slight_smile:

Blessings to you brother, and thanks for keeping me on my toes. :slight_smile:

Matt

#93

Matt,

Thanks, I totally resonate that objectivity will always innately remain elusive… and yet still should be pursued. And I was just adding that more concrete or objective reasons need to be spelled out as to why something “makes sense to me,” if I expect the yet unconvinced to be able to engage my thinking.

Grace be with you,
Bob

#94

After reading through all these posts this week and getting a feel for where people are at, I have decided not to engage in further discussion on the Trinity (as in, laying out my theories and how I arrived at them). There is so much information available on this topic and ultimately, each person must search it out for themselves and decide for themselves what makes the most sense in light of their relationship to God (of course, we should always continue to ask God for “sight” and understanding as well). We all come from unique angles and perspectives, and I don’t think further discussion is going to be all that productive. Part of it for me too is that, like my reason for writing Raising Hell and why I got to the point that I didn’t like discussing it before the book came out, it’s a very complicated topic–one that I could write another 300 page book on. It feels a little irresponsible giving summaries or highlights, rather than building my case, like I did in RH. And frankly, I don’t have the time or energy for that right now.

If any of you are still “worried” or “concerned” about my spiritual well-being after what I’ve shared, I guess that is how it is. I certainly hope it doesn’t affect your desire to share the message of RH with others, but I understand it might. However, I still believe God will put the message in the hands He wants it in to free people from the bondage to fear.

Though I don’t normally flaunt my rejection of the Trinity, it’s bound to come up from time to time, as it did with the letter that copied and posted here, where I was trying to share with someone on the Berean forum in response to their question. I won’t shy away from discussing my views with others when asked or trying to help, that’s for sure.

Thanks for the good discussion and have a happy Thanksgiving everyone!

Julie

#95

Cindy,

Thanks for engaging the substance of the Biblical data! When I mentioned the books and debates among the three British evangelicals devoted to this issue (Bauckham, Hurtado, and Dunn), I think all are agreed that the N.T. ultimately understands that Jesus is uniquely treated as an object of worship. There is some variation though on interpreting some Jewish precedents who similarly appear as instruments of God’s revealing presence, and as to what kind of traditional Trinitarian ontological formulations are warranted because Jesus is in this position. Most recognize that the ‘worship’ appropriate to Jesus is regularly qualified or conditioned in terms of his unique relationship to God as the Father.

In my conservative tradition, the certainty of the creedal formulations about the Godhead were always assumed. But I am doubtful that Jn. 1:18 refers to God’s revelation in the O.T. Jesus. Doesn’t it more likely intend to refer to his earthly ministry? Your claim that Jesus regularly received worship during his earthly ministry is questioned by many (especially if the synoptic Gospels are understood as providing the historical language employed; John’s Gospel does present a high Christology, but at many points varies from the synoptics). I think it’s fair to say that most scholars are doubtful that even Jesus’ disciples would have at all identified Jesus as God before the resurrection. I actually see him making huge claims to speak authoritatively for God and to reveal God, but emphasizing recognition and worship of God the Father.

My impression is that scholars most engaged and conversant with these debates all recognize that subtle differences between them hang on different nuances seen in the same passages. Again, the simple little book that outlines these challenges for we who are unfamiliar with them is James D. G. Dunn’s, “Did the Early Christians Worship Jesus?”

Blessings to you,
Bob

#96

Practically the last thing he ever wrote in his last religious book: “Guesses, only guesses. If this isn’t true, something better will be.”

(That was on purgatory, by the way. :slight_smile: )

Whether all we have are guesses or not (and Lewis didn’t think he only had guesses about some things), I still recommend such an attitude to any inquirer (such as my most beloved, who at best has only vague guesses) or doctrinaire (such as myself). :smiley:

That’s an act of true faith that anyone can do. But not always easy to do, for anyone.

He was probably paraphrasing Chesterton: the true doctrine will fit all the complexities like a key in a lock.

#97

I agree that this core doctrine of ‘the trinity’ has been discussed openly by scholars and theologians throughout 2000 years. In the light of this, and what you have just said, one wonders what point there would be in publishing any further work on this topic. It has been dealt with exhaustively by giants - that is unless you have some unique and novel revelation or discovery!

I wonder if we could/should entertain that thought with regards a discussion forum in general? you may make a valid point here.

(my bold)
The phrase ‘building my case’ worries me.
It can be correctly used when we KNOW for certain the truth (as in we are defending ourselves against a false charge in court for example) and need to convince others of what the truth ACTUALLY is.
But surely this is not how we should come to the conclusion of UR or of the deity of Christ? It sounds as if we have already decided what we WILL conclude and then we search for evidence to support our prejudices.
If this is how RH was formed then I believe that we all have cause for concern.
We should not have a case on which to build, but before God we should seek the truth with an open heart and let him present HIS case. This is quite different.

In the light of this last post, I regard what I said previously to be even more relevant:

God bless

#98

Unless I misunderstand you, I think it’s a little too uptight to criticize my use of “build my case.” :sunglasses: It was merely meant to convey the assembling of building blocks as to how I see all the intricacies fitting together. That’s all.

And this is a lot of the reason why I really don’t want to get involved in discussion over it. I really hate having to painstakingly select my every word so carefully for fear of being misunderstood or judged.

#99

Hi Julie
I doubt that you misunderstand me and you may well be right. I do not criticise your use of the term ‘build my case’. I am sure that the phrase communicated quite accurately and succinctly what was in your mind. As you say, it may well be my interpretation that was unusual - it wouldn’t be the first time. :wink: Neither of us is in a position to judge the other’s heart. It is difficult enough to assess our own hidden agendas. You bear a heavy weight of responsibility and I don’t envy you that. May God continue to work in you and through you.

#100

I understood it that way myself, fwiw. :slight_smile:

(But then, I can sympathize with not wanting to get much into detail unless I can get much into detail. :smiley: )