The Evangelical Universalist Forum

Is Jesus God or What?

Theology Christology
#101

The problem with that thinking is Christ had to empty - or divest - Himself of the very things you say God ‘bestowed’ on Him - or most of those things in terms of quality - in order to walk amongst us as a man. But why the need to do that if He was not God in the first place?

So whatever was ‘bestowed’ had to be removed by or taken back by the giver before Christ got here. Now it’s a question of when were these titles and powers ‘bestowed’. You can no longer say ‘since the beginning’ since Christ is not God but a creation. Nor can you say that Christ ‘knew’ God by being of the same ontological ‘stuff’ as God, but only by what was revealed to Him or by guessing what He is like - kinda like us.

What I’m saying is ‘bestowing’ ‘Godness’ is an impossibility. The only thing you can affirm then with any confidence is that a ‘Godly resurrected Man’ rules the universe. i.e. An object of worship other than God. Like I said, couldn’t we do that with a hub-cap?

#102

It’s possible I’ve slept since then–what problem did I say “we” were having?? (And who did I mean by “we”??) I’m looking back through my posts in this thread and I honestly have no clue what you’re talking about. Do you mean the complexity of testimony details?

Doesn’t hurt to compare (since, after all, the whole point of exegesis is to figure out what the heck the texts are not only saying but authoritatively testifying to–whether one agrees with the testimony or not.) But where have I ever said that those churches could be expected to have the same development of theological understanding?

On the other hand, insofar as the 2000 years of Christian thought and doctrine and creeds on the matter of who Christ was, was based on what the authorities who authored those texts were trying to testify to, what got put together during that time (and what gets put together now) ought to incorporate their testimony in some coherent way. It isn’t my fault that it’s a knobby task. (No more than it’s my fault that reality turns out to be complexly detailed at all.)

Ran, I seriously have no idea who you even think you’re replying to, at this point. Maybe you’ve confused me with John Sonshine??

I think the Church has gotten off track at some points, but I sure as hell don’t appeal to some mystical private revelation of my own in criticism of it. (Nor do I disrespect mysticism per se; but I’ve commented before, in words pretty similar to your denunciation before, that there’s a wide field for error and self-deception in such experiences.)

I appeal, in exegetical criticism, to the same texts the Church uses. (i.e., the same texts the Church uses which include at least one text you outright reject as being heretical and utterly false.) And I appeal, in metaphysical criticism, to the same basic doctrines the Church professes. If I critique people who otherwise would reject a personal schism of intentions between the Persons, that in some subordinate doctrine they’re schisming the intentions of the the Persons, I’m only calling attention to the standard we otherwise accept.

Now, if I criticize someone who outright insists on a personal schism of intentions between the Persons, that’s a somewhat different matter–though I’ll still try to find some common ground between us to sort out the issue pro or con–but then, in that case the problem isn’t that I think “the enemy” is “the Church”: because “the Church” and I, right or wrong, are saying the same thing (no schisming of intentions of the Persons).

Actually, and I can quote myself on this (which I note you didn’t bother to do in your screed), but I did rank the claim of inspired authority higher than the authority to teach. Yes, those who have authority to teach (or claim it anyway) are held to stricter standards of liability by God, when it comes to doctrinal accuracy, than those people who aren’t claiming any such authority; but I also said that those who have prophetic authority (or claim it anyway) are held to even stricter standards of liability by God. This is pretty normal Biblical practice, OT and NT. I know you had to have had some inkling I said and meant that, because you finished a comment snorfing about how I was (supposedly) denying there could be such a thing as the inspired authority of the Church to teach, apparently on the ground that claiming any such authority at all was in itself the spirit of antichrist. NEITHER OF WHICH I EVER SAID!! But you obviously jumped that shark in annoyance at me saying something about how claims of prophetic inspiration have the highest liability under God.

This all got started because A37 was trying to make out that 1 John 4:2-3 means that anyone at all who denies the two natures of Christ (fully man, fully God) must not be a child of God but must instead be of the spirit of the antichrist. I pointed out that anyone could have gone back one verse (1 John 4:1) to find out who the Evangelist was actually aiming at: persons claiming prophetic authority and inspiration whom he considers to be false prophets, whom he warns his congregations about with one test on how to tell if they’re illegitimate prophets. (I also pointed out that while I agree it’s entirely proper to read in larger contextual meanings to 1 John to figure out what the author means doctrinally there, and a couple of other places, in two of those places it isn’t possible to read those doctrines out of what he’s saying; and in the third place it takes some major contextual and grammatic analysis to read something out of it and its local contexts.)

How does that translate to a rejection of all prophetic inspiration claims? It doesn’t; and I never said it did. (For God’s sake, man, I think the same guy authored RevJohn!–why would I try to twist 1 John 4 around to mean a rejection of all prophetic inspiration claims? Even leaving RevJohn aside, that would involve me denying Jesus was inspired, a denial that would be ludicrous for me to make as a trinitarian–or any other kind of supernaturalistic Christian at all.)

How does that translate to a rejection of “the traditional orthodox Church” as having the spirit of antichrist? It doesn’t; and I never said it did. (On the contrary, between the two of us, I’m not the one constantly cruising on the edge of forum punishment for throwing out denunciations of that sort.)

I thought what I wrote was pretty detailed about that:

1.) When they claim that they should be accepted as inspired authority;
and
2.1) When their purported inspiration involves Christ not being Lord (in the sense of ADNY Most High, not some lesser lord);
or
2.2) When their purported inspiration involves Christ not coming in the flesh.

My observation that 2.1 cannot be read out of those two verses by themselves, doesn’t mean I don’t agree with the point of the verses. My observation that this censure does not apply to people like Mel or Aaron, or even to John Sonshine, doesn’t mean I don’t agree with the point of the verses either.

(Whether the forum leaders ought to do the same thing is more debatable, but if I argued that the forum is not a house church and so we don’t have the same responsibility to turn away such people, that would still not mean I don’t agree with the point of the verses.)

Um, nope, I’m pretty sure that my affirming John’s target as being people falsely claiming prophetic authority, instead of his target being people like Mel and Aaron who are doing no such thing, in exactly NO WAY turns the attack back onto John (the Evangelist) himself. Including as someone claiming prophetic inspiration himself.

#103

Jason.

Here is exactly what I said: sigh. I’m a hyper-orthodox trinitarian theologian??? Ok…Anyway…John gives a measuring stick to determine whether the propagator of the message is a demon spirit or the Holy Spirit. Jesus Christ has come in the flesh. This is the first test of a true teacher: they acknowledge and proclaim that Jesus is God incarnate in human flesh. The construction does not mean that they confess Christ as having come to earth, but that they confess that He came in the flesh to the earth, His human body was physically real. Both the full humanity and full deity of Jesus must be equally maintained by the teacher who is to be considered genuinely of the Spirit. The Holy Spirit testifies to the true nature of the Son, while Satan and his forces distort and deny that true nature.

Which is hermeneutic, exegetical correct.

#104

Jason.

Why the essay response to every post?

#105

Um, then you had better start defining ‘authority’ for good or naught. That’s the bugaboo you keep stating as the REAL enemy - the real danger and the real indicator of bad teaching. ‘Teach anything you like - just don’t claim authority to teach it.’ Can one run a church like that? Any church? And not have it turn into a free-for-all. And, as if I needed to remind you, this ain’t a church here - but would Aaron be allowed to teach that Christ is not God in a Lutheran church? Hell no. Do we have the authority to bar him from teaching in our church? Yes, and God-given authority, by the way. Do you really think it’s been different since the beginning? Is that authority ‘quenching the spirit’ or insuring sound doctrine within the church? I would argue that any ‘spirit’ chaffing at authority do a reality check first before starting a ‘ministry.’ The Magisterium of one.

I don’t think Aaron is claiming inspiration (other than being compelled by logic) and I don’t think he’s claiming authority (other than to say he’s thinking more logically) so should John have let him into the church to teach that Christ was not God? And if not Aaron, then why not the Montanist who’s prophesying and teaching that the sky is gonna fall next week?..again.

Let’s cut to the chase. Who has been granted authority to teach? No one? Everyone? Teachers? Dead teachers? His church, who trains teachers? Only those claiming a ‘revelation’? The loudest? Who?

And who has been granted the authority to stop someone from teaching? Would a cessionist (without claiming authority, of course) be allowed to teach in a pentecostal church for long? If they boot him out is THAT ‘quenching the spirit?’ Who knows? But I know WHY they would stop him from teaching - to protect their doctrine and tradition.

#106

I’m not sure this kind of objection applies to those who (like myself) don’t believe Christ “pre-existed” his own birth. I’m not an Arian (although being labeled as “Aaron the Arian” would be kinda funny :mrgreen: ). Moreover, I’m not arguing that God bestowed upon Christ every divine attribute (again, I think that would be impossible if Jesus is in fact a man); what I am saying is that, whereas during his earthly ministry Christ could do nothing of himself (John 5:19, 30), after his death/resurrection God bestowed upon Christ “functional equivalence” to himself in the sense that he gave his Son “all authority in heaven and on earth” and made him “Lord over all,” both “the dead and the living.” There is no indication whatsoever that the Father was simply giving back to Jesus what he’d already possessed for “all eternity.” And even assuming this to be so, one would think that, after being “restored” to his former “divine status,” he would keep it for all eternity. But in 1 Cor 15:24-28 Paul tells us that Christ is going to deliver the kingdom he received from the Father back to the Father, and then subject himself to the Father. In other words, Jesus’ “functional equivalence” to the Father is to last for as long as his reign lasts; when he subjects all people to himself (and thus fulfills the ultimate purpose for which he was born), he will be subjected to God just like every other human being, so that God may be “all in all.”

#107

Ranran.

Teach?..Aaron would not be considered a born again Christian because the Holy Spirit testifies to the true nature of Jesus…only the Antichrist spirit denies the true nature of Jesus. The bible makes this very clear. The bible is very simple to understand…it takes the help of someone to help you not understand it.

#108

RanRan you are fire tonight bro! I am enjoying it and as always love the passion! :mrgreen:

#109

Is it simple enough for unbelievers to understand or can only believers understand the Bible?

#110

This is getting interesting. Most people who say that Christ is not God and not a man - call THAT whatever it is remaining - a myth…Or Christ The Concept for non-literary types.

Sheesh, Aaron. It’s time for some compelling logic. Do you realize the corner you’ve painted yourself into? Or why Luther called logic a whore? Your goddess has let you down this time.

Simply put, you have this jealous God demanding that every knee bow and every tongue confess, TO WORSHIP something that is NOT God - but the ‘functional equivalent’ of God. Why not Hitler or Stalin? They demanded worship as well. And what pantheist hasn’t found the ‘functional equivalent’ of God in a tree, or a bull, or my good ole hub-cap as worthy of worship? Yeah, you’re talking idolatry and don’t even know it.

Is this where ‘compelling logic’ has taken you - because this is where you are. And it ain’t pretty, no matter how you paint it. So paint away, but the title on the canvas, all flowered up and pretty, is still going to be NOTGOD.

#111

I have not painted myself into a corner, Ran. I made sure to define “functional equivalence” to mean exactly what Scripture says in regards to what was given(!) to Christ by the Father since his death/resurrection. I am not saying that the Father is demanding that everyone worship Christ as one who is ontologically equivalent to himself. I’m saying he has given to Jesus (God’s perfect representative - the “image of the invisible God”) an exalted status that makes him worthy of worship and honor as such. I don’t worship Jesus as God (i.e., the Father); I worship him for who he is: the Messiah - the King of kings and Lord of lords. If you think all worship (honor, reverence and adoration) of which the Bible speaks is to be reserved for God alone, then you’re mistaken.

I encourage you to re-read the story of Joseph in Genesis to better understand my position on this. Just like Pharaoh (who was considered a “god” to the Egyptians) exalted Joseph to a status that was second only to Pharaoh himself - even giving Joseph his *signet ring *(Gen 41:42), which signified the Pharaoh’s own authority - so the one true God (the Father) has exalted his Son. While this elevated status did not make Joseph Pharaoh, it did enable him to do everything that the Pharaoh could do (and it was only the Pharaoh who could delegate this authority!). Joseph was set over all the land of Egypt; all the people were under his command. According to Pharaoh, without Joseph’s consent no one could even “life up hand or foot in all the land of Egypt” (vv. 40-41, 44, 55). Not only that, but Joseph was even given a new name (v. 45)! This, RanRan, is a beautiful type of what God did for Jesus when he raised him from the dead, set him at his right hand as Lord over all, and gave him a name that is above every name.

#112

Aaron: I’m not sure this kind of objection applies to those who (like myself) don’t believe Christ “pre-existed” his own birth. I’m not an Arian (although being labeled as “Aaron the Arian” would be kinda funny). Moreover, I’m not arguing that God bestowed upon Christ every divine attribute (again, I think that would be impossible if Jesus is in fact a man); what I am saying is that, whereas during his earthly ministry Christ could do nothing of himself (John 5:19, 30), after his death/resurrection God bestowed upon Christ “functional equivalence” to himself in the sense that he gave his Son “all authority in heaven and on earth” and made him “Lord over all,” both “the dead and the living.” There is no indication whatsoever that the Father was simply giving back to Jesus what he’d already possessed for “all eternity.”

Tom: Hi Aaron. I’m not a scholar on Arius or anything, but I think I know enough to question how this makes you essentially different than Arius. What do you see as the essential differences between your view had his? True, Arius believed the Son pre-existed creation while you don’t. But Arius believed the Son was created slightly before the world, so you both agree the Son is a created, non-divine being, and that would be Orthodoxy’s objection. And Arius would agree that lordship and authority to rule are conferred upon Christ as a function and not as something he deserves because of any inherent/essential divine attribute. So again, I’m not seeing a huge difference between the two of you. What do you think differentiates the two of you so importantly?

And I mean this only on an academic level. This says nothing about your (or Arius’s) faith or trust in Christ with respect to salvation. These issues and the councils that debated them were about defining what the community’s orthodox belief would be. And they decided that Arianism didn’t express/represent the orthodox faith of the Church. The same church leaders believed excommunicated persons were also LOST. But that, I think, was uncalled for.

You may be certainly unorthodox, in which case orthodox/trinitarian churches wouldn’t have you teaching Sunday School, being a deacon or elder, or serving on the Church Board. But (contra A37) I don’t think it follows that Orthodoxy can render a judgment about the status of your faith and soul. I’ve known non-trinitarians that I had every possible confidence were my brothers and sisters in Christ. But when it came to our churches’ catechism/curriculum, administration and leadership these individuals weren’t permitted a defining role. Some churches wouldn’t let them attend either (following antiquity’s rule there). Some would let them attend only and worship. But you understand all this.

Blessings,
Tom

#113

OK, I whittled down my response somewhat. And I decided to post my treatise on the matter of the deity of Christ, then branch off to another thread which I title “Jesus and the Creation”. I believe both have relevance to the question at hand but feel that a separate thread dealing with the creation issue to prevent the discussion from might veering away from the topic here.

Before I come to the how or mechanics of the question, I first want to establish that indeed there is evidence in my view that Jesus is God. My proof texts will come from the book of Revelation (and I understand that some here might not take Revelation as canon. I could just as well use other passages to support the claim, but this one just happens to be my favorite) :

“I am Alpha and Omega, the beginning and the ending, saith the Lord, which is, and which was, and which is to come, the Almighty…Saying, I am Alpha and Omega, the first and the last:” – Revelation 1:8, 11a

Whoever is speaking here is making an unequivocal claim that He has always existed and is all-powerful. This recalls back a similar claim in Isaiah 48 attributed to the LORD:

“Hearken unto me, O Jacob and Israel, my called; I am he; I am the first, I also am the last.
Mine hand also hath laid the foundation of the earth, and my right hand hath spanned the heavens: when I call unto them, they stand up together.” – Isaiah 48:12-13

There is no doubt that this is the Creator speaking. And BTW, there is a curious Trinitarian-supported verse in Isaiah 48:16, which implies three persons involved (the Lord GOD, His Spirit, and Me, the latter being the aforementioned speaker), but I’ll leave it to you to unravel)

And so turning back to Rev. 1, we can see the continuance of the words spoken by the LORD:

“Saying, I am Alpha and Omega, the first and the last: and, What thou seest, write in a book, and send it unto the seven churches which are in Asia; unto Ephesus, and unto Smyrna, and unto Pergamos, and unto Thyatira, and unto Sardis, and unto Philadelphia, and unto Laodicea.”

So the Speaker is instructing the Apostle John to write to these churches, but when John turns to see who spoke the voice, he is greeted with a description if the Being in Rev 1:12-16, which is quite similar with the Person described later in Rev. 19:11-16, which clearly describes the return of Christ, as the Word of God, King of Kings, Lord of Lords. Note similarities in eyes as the flames of fire and the double-edged sword out of His mouth.

Furthermore, we can identify the Rev 1 figure as the risen Christ in the next few verses:

“And when I saw him, I fell at his feet as dead. And he laid his right hand upon me, saying unto me, Fear not; I am the first and the last: I am he that liveth, and was dead; and, behold, I am alive for evermore, Amen; and have the keys of hell and of death.” – Rev 1:17-18

But the clincher for me is found in a related passage in Rev. 20: 6-7:

“And he said unto me, It is done. I am Alpha and Omega, the beginning and the end. I will give unto him that is athirst of the fountain of the water of life freely.
He that overcometh shall inherit all things; and I will be his God, and he shall be my son.”

The identity of the Alpha and Omega is confirmed when we realize that Jesus possess the everlasting water of life as He stated in John 4:14, and in the same breath proclaims that for those who drinks of the water of life freely He (Jesus) will be his God.

Now I’d like to attempt to describe my view of the Trinity, but to do that I need to go back to the beginning. So please direct you attention to this thread:

Jesus and Creation

Then return for the conclusion in a following thread here.

#114

Here is my conclusion, following on from this thread: Jesus and creation.

I’ve always wondered why the Blood? I mean, physical Blood. How can physical Blood in anyway affect the spiritual? Why is it so essential to redemption? We are told in Hebrews 9:14,

“How much more shall the blood of Christ, who through the eternal Spirit offered himself without spot to God, purge your conscience from dead works to serve the living God?”

Because the Spirit is hidden behind the veil, and indeed is the conduit between the Eternal and the temporal universe, yet there is no access to the spirit, soul, and body of corrupted man, since he became an independent agent. Man needs to be made perfect before there can be interaction with God. We learn from I John 5:7,8 that there are three that bear record in heaven (The Eternal): the Father, the Word (which speaks creation into existence), and the Holy Spirit (the conduit between the Eternal and the temporal), and these three are One. And that there are three that bear witness on earth (the physical temporal universe): the Spirit, the water, and the blood, and these three agree in one.

Notice what is common is the Spirit.

Well, it is through the operation of the Holy Spirit that overshadowed (there’s that word again) Mary and that holy thing (thing? NOTE: mostly rendered ‘holy’ 229 times in the NT) born in her that shall be called the Son of God. In Hebrews 10:6 we read, *“Wherefore when he cometh into the world, he saith, Sacrifice and offering thou wouldest not, but a body hast thou prepared me:”, *and then in Philippians 2:7-8, *“But made himself of no reputation, and took upon him the form of a servant, and was made in the likeness of men: And being found in fashion as a man…”, *testifying that the physical body of Jesus is created (though He himself is uncreated, being God), and so the witness of the Spirit on earth is that the Spirit conceived in Mary Jesus’ body. Whether it was wholly created by the Spirit or a merger of godly DNA with Mary’s DNA is of speculation beyond the scope of discussion, but suffice to say it was holy. But it is the Spirit of Christ from Eternity that that enters the temporal world first through conception in the womb of Mary, uncorrupted in human flesh as the Spirit of Christ abides.

Moving on to the witness of water, we learn in John 3:5-6, *“I say unto thee, Except a man be born of water and of the Spirit, he cannot enter into the kingdom of God. That which is born of the flesh is flesh; and that which is born of the Spirit is spirit.” *

So the water represents Christ’s physical birth process with water nine months after the conception of the Holy Spirit through Mary, that which is flesh is flesh. Water is used to symbolize a new beginning, a baptism into the newness of life, a process of being born. The Israelites after coming out of Egypt were baptized as a nation through the Red Sea, after escaping the bondage (womb) of Egypt (I Cor.10:1-2).

Finally, the witness of the blood, as Jesus sheds His blood on the Cross for our sins in His death. How interesting that these three things that bear witness to Christ encompasses His whole life and death. As far as the blood is concerned,

“For the life (soul) of the flesh is in the blood…” – Leviticus 17:11

With this Levitical prohibition concerning eating of blood, it should not be overlooked the significance of that statement. We find that the blood of Abel cried out of the ground to God after Cain killed him. It is my belief that the blood is where the soul resides. Blood takes oxygen and other nutrients to all the cells of the body. When God breathed life into Adam after forming him from the ground, Adam became a living soul as that oxygen coursed through his blood. Death really occurs when there is a lack of oxygen to the cells and cell death becomes immanent and permanent.

In Jesus, there is the life-giving blood of the eternal and endless Spirit of God. When Jesus died, his soul died also, but the Spirit of God through the Eternal brought Him back to life. Why? Because that blood was pure, untainted. Jesus was pure, untainted. And when that life-giving blood is imparted to us, we become purified through the eternal Spirit (see Hebrews 9:14).

Therefore, it is not merely a symbolized sacrifice of atonement meant to appease God as satisfaction for payment for our sins, but a metaphysical act that will physically and spiritually change our lives. It is the merger of Spirit of God and the Body of Christ which begat the Son of God.

Well, I know what you are thinking. This makes Jesus’ existence have a starting point in Mary. But that’s not what I’m saying at all. Rather I’m demonstrating that the concept of tzimtzum explains the Trinity (as explained in the other thread) in a coherent fashion that takes nothing away from the deity or eternity of Christ. It is the revealing of God in stages, a progressive manifestation of God in different forms at different times. It is telescopic in explanation:

God the Father dwells in Eternity.

God the Holy Spirit dwells simultaneously between Eternity and the temporal universe, via contraction (tzimtzum). It is the Holy Spirit that manifests Himself in the pillars of fire and clouds interacting with the temporal world from Eternity. The Holy Spirit is like a conduit between each.

God the Son dwells humanly. It is the Body and Blood of Christ fashioned as a man, but it is the Spirit of God dwelling in the man, Jesus. Jesus died as a human in the flesh, but raised by the Spirit of God and metaphysically changed in the resurrection and risen up into eternity. You can think of Christ as the mustard seed, where as one man who opened up the way for all of us to return to the Creator in eventual harmony as He reconciles the world.

All Three reside simultaneously because from the Eternity, all temporal events are simultaneous: past, present, and future. Wherever Eternity is, outside the time-space-matter construct, therein dwells the Godhead.

All things in the temporal universe are a shadow of the Eternal.

All things that exist in the temporal are from the Essence of God, but are a contraction of God that both Light and Darkness can dwell, in order for man to have the means to be autonomous. However, God’s Spirit will draw all men toward Himself and eventually all things will be reconciled back, through Christ.

The final reconciling of the world will involve a new heavens and new earth, which will be a reversal of the contraction of God, possibly an unraveling of the 10-dimensional space.

#115

Tom.

How many true born again children of God do you know that go around blaspheming Jesus and denying that He is God in the flesh? I know none… 1 John 4: 1-4 is very clear…A False teacher or prophet is tested by the spirit that is leading them. The Holy Spirit testifies the true nature of Jesus and The Antichrist spirit denies the true nature of Christ.

#116

Psst…Hey Aaron37:

*"And John answered him, saying, Master, we saw one casting out devils in thy name, and he followeth not us: and we forbad him, because he followeth not us.

But Jesus said, Forbid him not: for there is no man which shall do a miracle in my name, that can lightly speak evil of me.

For he that is not against us is on our part.

For whosoever shall give you a cup of water to drink in my name, because ye belong to Christ, verily I say unto you, he shall not lose his reward." - Mark 9:38-41*

Hmmm…I didn’t catch the part where they interrogated this guy as to his doctrinal beliefs about the deity of Christ, did you?

#117

Dondi.

How many true born again children of God do you know that go around blaspheming Jesus and denying that He is God in the flesh? I know absolutley none. If you think that is Ok or normal…your dead wrong.

#118

Hark, I hear an echo.

For those who have you cramped up, I can only offer this:

“Believe me that I am in the Father, and the Father in me: ***or else ***believe me for the very works’ sake.” - John 14:11 [emphasis mine]

Seems Jesus was less concerned about what people thought of Him. That ‘or else’ gives the option to believe Him for the works that He did rather than trying unravel His nature.

#119

Dondi.

That is what I thought…you know none yourself. There is a reason for that.

#120

I’m a missionary at heart and tend to extract theology (partly) from that (as, I think, did Paul). Now, I don’t think the deity of Christ is an unimportant issue, but missiologically my goal is to MOVE people from where they are into a steadily progressing faith and intimacy with Christ. I think it’s possible for people to position themselves in right relation to God in/through Christ without having to cross EVERY Christological T and dot EVERY Christological I. For example, in my part of the world it’s not uncommon for Muslims to trust in Christ–i.e., to believe that Christ died for them and that in Christ’s death for them God did in fact fix what’s wrong with the human race–without really understanding theologically that Christ is God-incarnate. We’ll teach them and work with them. Eventually they grow conceptually into an appreciation of what it is they’ve experienced. But many just don’t “get it” at first, though they DO look to Christ as when and where God dealt with the fallenness of human beings. I have no doubt they’re saved on the basis of that trust. And I think Christ is happy to embrace them lovingly and mediate to them his healing presence and fill them with his Spirit.

I won’t CONFIRM them in their failure to affirm Christ’s deity. I’ll WORK on that. But turn the light on FIRST, then dust and straighten the furniture. If others can’t countenance such a thing, there are other mission boards and churches they can work with. Good ridence. (What the rudeness Tom! Yes.) But I’ve seen more enduring fruit from this approach than from demanding that Muslims pass a systematic theology class before we’ll embrace them in community on the basis of their faith in the Crucified Christ. I’ve known Muslims who committed to Christ, trusted what God did in Christ on the Cross as the ONLY means of their redemption and right relation to God, even pray to Christ and believe he lives within them via the Spirit, but who for several years just couldn’t bring themselves to SAY “Jesus is God” (or divine, or whatever).

Tom