I believe that while Jesus walked this earth prior to His resurrection, He was fully human. He divested Himself of all of His divine attributes when He became man.
The only part of His pre-incarnate state which He retained was His identity as the Son of God. He had no more power to perform miracles than any other man. Yet His Father performed miracles THROUGH Him. Indeed, even in Christ’s pre-incarnate state, the Father created the universe THROUGH Him!
Jesus was a unified human being like any other. Jesus showed us through His example, that we too can do God’s will, and that God can work through us also.
When He died, He really died. But God raised Him from the dead, and then He lived. For that reason He is called “the first-born of the dead” (Rev.1:5).
Some day, there will be multitudes who will be born into the resurrection. But Jesus was the first.
Our resurrection is just like Christ’s. We will no longer have a human body for it will perish. We are then given a spiritual body like Christ’s. Surely you don’t think Christ has a spiritual body with a human soul. The scripture is clear that Christ died on the cross. The soul is connected to the body. It’s the self with all it’s drives. Christ’s human self was finite and limited as the scriptures teach. He grew from a baby to a man and didn’t know everything. As God He didn’t grow. As God, He was infinite in wisdom and knowledge. The Bible says He died for our sins. Christ’s human self died on the cross. His Divine self didn’t. For He said, “Father into Your hands I commit my Spirit.”
Instead of quoting a creed how about a scripture? I have no creed but Christ.
What do you think of the first two verses of Revelation?
The revelation of Jesus Christ, which God gave him to show to his servants the things that must soon take place. He made it known by sending his angel to his servant John, who bore witness to the word of God and to the testimony of Jesus Christ, even to all that he saw. (RSV)
The way I understand this passage is that in 90 A.D. (or whenever John wrote Revelation), God gave a revelation to Jesus Christ to show his servants things that must soon take place. Jesus then made it known by sending his messenger (or “angel”) to John, who bore witness to the word of God and to the testimony of Christ which was made known to him, by writing the book of Revelation.
That fact that Jesus was given a revelation by God indicates that Jesus was not infinite in knowledge at the time (even though He had His risen, spiritual body). God gave the revelation of what would soon take place to Jesus, and Jesus made it known to John by sending His angel to reveal those things to John.
That is an excellent observation, Paidion. You are I both believe in the subordination of Christ, and this verse, as well as many others, show this is a theme continually portrayed in scripture. When I said earlier that your views on the Trinity were likewise condemned; I should have said yours and my views were condemned. Sorry.
The revelation of Jesus Christ, which God gave him to show to his servants the things that must soon take place.
Even if you are right it doesn’t say when God gave Christ the revelation. It could have been during His earthly ministry. Moreover, It was a revelation that God gave to Christ to reveal to the servants. This doesn’t prove Christ didn’t know about it. He was just passing it on.
And you are right, Michael, that it doesn’t say when the revelation was give to Christ. But if it were given to Him while He lived on earth as a man, it seems odd that He wouldn’t have revealed it to John or anyone else until 90 A.D. (or whenever John wrote Revelation) until after God raised Him from the dead.
God’s ways are mysterious. Even if you are right It could have been a revelation that God gave to Christ to reveal to the servants. This doesn’t prove Christ didn’t know about it. He was just passing it on.
So you don’t need the witness of the Church Fathers? You don’t see a problem with that? Do you think that God is going to reveal something to you that he has not been revealing to his Church down through the ages? Or, do you think that you can somehow chart your own course?
But, I do have a scriptural quote for you:
Ephesians 4:11-14: 11 And He Himself gave some to be apostles, some prophets, some evangelists, and some pastors and teachers, 12 for the equipping of the saints for the work of ministry, for the edifying of the body of Christ, 13 till we all come to the unity of the faith and of the knowledge of the Son of God, to a perfect man, to the measure of the stature of the fullness of Christ; 14 that we should no longer be children, tossed to and fro and carried about with every wind of doctrine, by the trickery of men, in the cunning craftiness of deceitful plotting,
The witness of the Church Fathers is a gift from Jesus Christ to his Church. They are his gift to you, if you will have them. If you choose to neglect His gift to you, brushing their witness off by saying, “I have no creed but Christ” then that would be to your own peril.
I am not saying that men are infallible. There are many errors taught throughout the Church. We are all fallen. Yet the Spirit uses fallen humans, and the same Spirit of Christ who leads us today has led in His Church for 2000 years.
Vast numbers of Christians down through the ages have been followers of Christ and his example. For us to neglect their witness would be detrimental to us. God has given them to us as pastors and teachers to for our edification and instruction. Far be it from me to think that I don’t need their witness. That would be like the eye saying to the hand, “I do not need you” (1 Corinthians 12:21). Rather, “the manifestation of the Spirit is given to each one for the profit of all” (1 Cor 12:7). We are not islands to ourselves. We need the faithful witness of the Pastors and teachers both of today and of those who passed 16 centuries ago. They wrote the creeds for us, that we might not be “tossed to and fro and carried about with every wind of doctrine” (Ephesians 4:14).
Thus, the apostle says, “Be a follower of me, as I am of Christ” (1 Cor 11:1). In as much as we see Christ in our Church leaders (both of today and of centuries past), we ought to follow their example. They are Christ’s gift to us.
You’ve been reading Jonathan Edwards (or at least I think you said something about him in this or another recent thread). Do you think he’s worth listening to? The thing is, we are ALL fallible humans – even you. We need one another. Jesus’ last recorded prayer in John for His church included a request that we might be one. That doesn’t mean we’ll all agree on everything, but we DO need one another. We can’t BE the church without one another. So yes, I think it’s appropriate that we give weight to what the church fathers had to say as well as what current theologians, and even you, me, Dan, Stef, Paidion, and Allan (I think that’s everyone who’s been on this thread) have to say. None of us is an island, sufficient to himself. I learn things here all the time.
This doesn’t mean that you believe everything you read, of course! If you tried to do that you’d go crazy. But it’s useful for us to know what the past leaders (and present too) of the church have said. We hope they were at the very least trying to know Jesus better, and whether or not we think their doctrine is correct, it’s absolutely worth listening to and considering. There is a faction of the church that says what you’ve said – “I just listen to Jesus and not to men.” Ironically, their leaders tell them this is what they should do, and then they tell them what Jesus said and what Jesus meant by what He said. If you disagree with what the leaders say Jesus meant, I expect they’d get just as irritated as any other leaders.
However you can keep it simple – love. Read the sermon on the mount (Matthew 5-7) and the love chapter (1 Corinthians 13) and do those things. Naturally you can’t DO them without the guidance and empowerment of the Holy Spirit, so trust in Him – the one who lives inside your spirit – to show you how and give you the ability. Then just dive in and do your best to obey. If you do this, then everything will come together.
I think that the wires have been crossed here with a false characterization of Michael. As I pointed out, neither Paidion or I would have been “orthodox” compared to the councils of the early church - and yet Paidion and I would be among the few people here who have read these writings critically and thoroughly. People quickly adopt opinions which they have not tested and they have not examined. Michael has not denied all of the early church teachings, he has simply asked for biblical references above references of ecumenical councils. I feel exactly the same way.
The early church went way off track from the 4th century onwards. They adopted the papacy, hellfire, the icons and statues, celibacy of priests, worship of Mary, and multitudes of false teachings and ideas, including the condemnation of earlier church teachers (such as Origen) which contradicted this empire of the Roman Church. Most christians on this forum would deny this 4th century church the power and beliefs it championed; including the canon of scripture with the apocrypha. Appealing to one of these councils dealing with the natures of Christ as an absolute measure is somewhat paradoxical; especially as so many of the other 4th century teachings are ignored with such vigor by most people. Just my views…
I do not desire to mis-characterize anyone here; and if I have misunderstood anyone (which is very possible), please show me where.
The thread started with Michael making a statement (he was not asking a question or seeking any clarification). I responded by asking if he realized that his statement contradicts the Ecumenical Creeds. His response to my inquiry was “so?”
He did not say, “I disagree with the ecumenical creeds because…” and explain why the creeds could not be correct on particular points - that would be a response one should expect from someone who disagrees with the creeds, as the burden of proof lies with those who disagree with the ecumenical creeds. Rather, he responded by brushing off the ecumenical creeds with a so-what attitude.
Thus, I responded that the so-what attitude was arrogant, given that the position of the creeds has been the doctrine of the Church universal for 16 centuries. It is simply arrogant for one to think that his understanding of scripture is to a point that he is not required to even begin to consider that the overwhelming majority of the Christian witness for several centuries disagrees with him.
He responds that he has no creed but Christ. I respond by pointing out that Jesus Christ has gifted his church with pastors and teachers and that should not choose to neglect their teachings. He responds by saying that I think that man is infallible and that I am a follower of man, but that he is a follower of Christ… (I think that men are infallible? …now who made the false characterization? That is okay. I take no offense).
Thus in my most recent post I said that we should follow the lead and example of other believers as they follow Christ, even as the apostle said we should do.
Where have I misunderstood or falsely characterized?
I am aware of Paidion’s unorthodox views, especially concerning the the Person of the Holy Spirit. I am not aware of where you deviate at present. I do not read every thread here. But there is a difference between you and Paidion on the one hand and Michael’s “no creed but Christ” on the other hand. You and Paidion have read the church fathers and thus must take them seriously. That is different than the so-what-no-creed-but-Christ attitude.
…yet none of the above are ecumenically confessed by the Church. Nor were any of those doctrines overwhelmingly confessed by the Church universal for centuries (except for hellfire). That Jesus Christ is God and man (as stated in the Nicene, Athanasian and Chalcedonian creeds) is ecumenically confessed and has been for 16 centuries. Those who disagree have the burden of proof.
By the way, that the eternity of hell is commonly confessed by the vast majority of Christians was one of the primary reasons why I was skeptical about universal reconciliation (as I discussed in my intro thread here a few months back). The beliefs of the Church, especially those beliefs that “cross party lines” are very important to me, as the Church is the pillar and the ground of the truth (1 Tim 3:15).
I did not intend to single you out. Your comment was subtle, but it was later captured by others who took the stronger position - that Michael was speaking contrary to the church councils, and that he was ignoring the teachings of the church. I think this is a rather extreme view, as most people today would believe something that is not in harmony with the ecumenical councils. I, for one, agree with the eternal subordination of Christ. This view was rejected by the ecumenical councils, but I think the councils were wrong on this account. Most people, as I said, would confuse the issues of the economic, imminent and ontological trinity. Are you personally able to define which of these views you hold, and are you able to cite which councils specifically vindicate your position? I would think not. The councils are a blight on the history of the church (IMO). The Gangster Synod is a lesson of corruption mixed with doctrine. We all should re-assess how accurate these fathers were in light of so much corruption.
I think I have orthodoxy on my side, as most of the early church fathers directly taught about the subordination of Christ. This view was only rejected in the 4th century under the threat of punishments. Orthodoxy is a slippery term. What exactly do you mean by this term?
I agree. However, Michael is not alone being ignorant of the ECF. Most christians are ignorant of this, and the proclamation of *Sola Scripture *is very relative to most Protestants. I personally do not agree with Sola Scripture, but the process of gaining knowledge from the early church is a very arduous terrain. It is easiest for most people to just ignore this terrain and stay closest to the scriptures. I think this is wise in many cases.
The role of the Holy Spirit is hardly addressed in the first ecumenical council, and this role took on a progressive understanding for a long time. The papacy became law for the earliest churches after the 4th century, as did celibacy for priests. I love my Catholic brothers, but this view of the papacy and the priesthood was definitely foreign to the New Testament. If the early christians could get such doctrines as the papacy, celibacy, hellfire, the soul, statues, state funding, paganized churches, Mariology, etc, so wrong, then it is wise for us to re-consider EVERYTHING that became church dogma from the 4th century onwards. I personally look at the time in-between the 1st and 3rd centuries to look for church orthodoxy. Each one must “work out your own salvation with fear and trembling.” (Philippians 2:12) I see you doing this, and it is very encouraging. I also see Michael doing the same. I find all of our brothers and sisters…, you, Michael, Cindy, Paidion, Pilgrim, and many others here - who put such an effort into searching for truth and maintaining truth - to be a very encouraging enterprise, even if we do not always agree with each other on absolutely everything.
Which Nicene creed? The original? Or the ones that were altered and added to by later Trinitarians?
Here is the original Nicene Creed:
Where in this creed do you find it stated that Jesus Christ is God and man? It stated that God begat Him before all ages. That implies that He is divine as the Father is, and of the same essence (is the exact imprint of the Father’s essence, Heb. 1:3). The term “God of God” means “God from God” or “Divinity from Divinity”. But that doesn’t mean that He is either God the Father nor a second God. Jesus Himself in prayer addressed the Father as being “the only true God” (John 17:3). Yet the early Christians described Him as “theos” in the sense that He was of the same divine essence as His Father. This is also the sense of John 1:1 where it is written that the Word was theos. That is He was “God essence” or to put it crudely “God stuff”, or as even the first Trinitarians had it, “He was of the same substance as the Father,” or co-substantial with the Father.
The Nicene as I am familiar with it reads as follows:
I fail to see any substantial difference in what you quoted and the that which I quoted.
Well, it sounds about as explicit as it can be to me:
"God of God, Light of Light, very God of very God; begotten, not made, being of one substance with the Father, by whom all things were made. Who, for us men for our salvation, came down from heaven, and was incarnate by the Holy Spirit of the virgin Mary, and was made man;
Did I say He was God the Father, or a second God? As a Trinitarian, I am neither a modalist nor a tri-theist.
Concerning the Athanasian Creed and the Definition of Chalcedon, unfortunately you are correct in that most people are unfamiliar with them. However, many people are familiar with the Apostles Creed and the Nicene Creed. In the Presbyterian church I attend, we rotate between reciting the Apostles Creed and the Nicene Creed weekly. I have been to a few Lutheran churches and they recite the creeds regularly as well, as does the Episcopal church. I would be surprised if the Roman Catholics do not recite both creeds regularly as well.
You are right in saying that the creeds are fallible and that we must reject tradition if it contradicts the Bible; and you are also correct in saying that there is a place for tradition. There is a difference between Sola Scriptura as it was believed by the Reformers and that espoused by many modern day individualistic Christians. The Reformers did not reject the teachings of the early church fathers, nor the authority of the creeds, nor did they reject writing confessions and catechisms as subordinate standards when they said Sola Scriptura. What they meant was the the Scriptures are the ultimate authority by which all controversies are to be resolved. Scripture is the final arbitrator of truth.
Anyway, I hope you do think about it. I highly recommend (to anyone) reading Keith Mathison’s book The Shape of Sola Scriptura. In the book he shows that the doctrine of Sola Scriptura is a middle ground between the position of Rome and the modern “me-and-my-Bible” position common today.
If you disagree with what the leaders say Jesus meant, I expect they’d get just as irritated as any other leaders.