Do you then fellowship with the Mormon and Jehovah Witness who likewise teach that one must submit to Christ, though they do not worship him as Apostle Thomas did, “My Lord and my God.” Or do you fellowship with Muslims who likewise share passion for god, but they are offended to call Him “Father.” Or do you fellowship with mystics and fools who delight in the unanswered foolery, but are offended that the Christian’s eyes are not blind, but in fact opened to the answers God has revealed. God is not an elephant, but we are fools, yet do we mock God’s most amazing grace, to make Himself known to foolish sinners? Do you fellowship with the Hindu who agrees that Jesus is god, but likewise thinks everything is god? Do you fellowship with the fringe labeling god a lady, neglecting God’s rebuke to Israel who called their god, the ‘queen of Heaven.’
Again… Christian faith includes both **agreement **with Biblical truth about God and **action **to obey this true God. So the hard work that remains is to be diligent knowing and growing closer to God and thus closer to each other, making Him known.
Are Muslims disciples of Christ? Do they submit to His authority? Do you consider that Mormons and Jehovah’s Witnesses are disciples of Christ who submit to His authority? Never mind what they teach. It’s not what they teach; it’s what they are (Are they disciples?) and what they do (Do they submit to Christ?)
Paidon, that statement is ridiculous. Someone can say they submit to the teaching of Christ, such as a Muslim, or appear to be a Christian such as a Mormon or Jehovah Witness, but if they do not agree with Jesus’ teaching about himself, that he is ‘I Am’, then they are charlatans and hardly Christian. If Jesus is not worshiped as the crucified and risen Son of God, deity, then they follow a mere imagined Jesus, not the true Christ.
How do you respond to the Inclusivist position (i.e. (Positions for the Lost)), in response to your previous dialogue (i.e. your last 2 posts)? Let me share a couple quotes, from the article:
It is a serous post, Jeff. You can usually tell, when I follow the path, of a Holy Fool Trainee. I have a laughing icon after the post - like this.
But the paradox is this: the Holy Fool Trainee path, is** really **a serious Christian path. Think of life as watching a serious Shakespeare play. Then the Bart injects some comic relief - at various strategic points.
And No, Paidion and Jeff. I’m not here to argue against your response, to the inclusivist position. Except to say I side with it - along with the majority of Protestant, Roman Catholic and Eastern Orthodox churches and theologians. I’m just here to see, how you respond to it
Paidion: Is Paidion a given name or an adopted one According to 3813. paidion, it means “a young child”. No offense met - just curious.
I believe the entire sin debt of mankind is already paid and the final salvation of all mankind already guaranteed. Is that Inclusive? Very inclusive. Yet I also observe that no one is saved from a corrupt unbelieving heart until the Holy Spirit changes us. That dimension of salvation is exclusive. Very exclusive. Consider the unbelieving Jew and Romans, the religious and the irreligious, who hated both Christ and Paul, crucifying one and cutting the head off the other. I believe these Jews and Romans will be finally saved in the end, but their hearts were not yet changed and so fellowship would be difficult as you can imagine. So the gospel contains both the message of great hope for mankind and the call for individuals to repent from self-righteousness and receive the good news of Christ’s righteousness, or else suffer the temporal consequences of rejecting the Lord God Jesus Christ. Don’t you see that the message that Christ loves all mankind unconditionally is the message that the unbelieving hate? It offends their self-righteousness whether they follow the religious Jew or the irreligious Roman.
Randy, your question was whether someone could be spared consequence if they never formally declared themselves a Christian, but they were faithful to what revelation they had received. Romans 2:12-16 could be understood this way, as I am sure you already know. For myself, I am positive that Christ’s judgment in these people’s lives will be trustworthy, and I am especially thankful that the merciful Christ is their judge and not any of us judgmental fallen humans!
However, the question Paidon and I were debating is a bit different. Your question was about people who were faithful to the revelation they had received even if they didn’t formally know Christ. However, Paidon and I were discussing people who were thoroughly introduced to Christ through the Scripture and testimony of believers yet they continue to reject His divine nature. Christ has declared his identity to them through the Scriptures, just as he did to the Jew and Roman in the first century. I understood Paidon to say that it does not matter what someone believes about the nature of the Father, Son, or Holy Spirit, but if they are willing to submit to His ideals they are Christian. For example, the Mormons agree that one should obey Christ, but they reject his divinity, even saying he is the twin brother of Satan. Is such a person faithful to the revelation they have received? I think not. Christ himself warns that those who ‘blasphme the spirit’ will not be forgiven in this age or the coming. So those who claim to submit to the teaching of Christ only present a ruse if they are unwilling to also submit to Christ’s teaching about Himself, no matter how much money they give to the poor.
That IMO is the typical evangelical mischaracterisation of the so-called “unbelieving”. There is nothing “unconditional” about the evangelical message that the so-called “unbelieving” dismiss… it’s like saying “FREE with every purchase over $30…” – THAT’S not “free” it is FULLY conditional, just like the evangelical message.
Spiritual maturity into the grace of God is not marked by who you exclude, or the groups you exclude, or the life styles you exclude. The mark of spiritual maturity into the grace of God is marked by the circle that gets bigger and wider, embracing more and more in understanding others, that in no matter what a man does he cannot escape the incredible mercy of God.
It is little wonder that folk grow up struggling with any inner faith when we in our religiosity have learnt go around saying things like: “God loves you!” – to which a respondent might ask… “How much does he love me?” – “Unconditionally!” we will say… “He has grace for your life!” “What kind of grace?” they will query – “Undeserved and unmerited favour, it’s all yours!” “Well I’m not so sure I can believe all this” is their slightly unconvinced response – and what is our religious rejoinder… “then you’ll burn in Hell forever!” (or fill in the appropriate universalist demarcation etc). Talk about a toxic and schizophrenic message.
NOWHERE in the gospels does Jesus require of any a belief in the theological proposition of his own divinity… to accept that he was FROM God was to believe that he Jesus carried God’s message with His imprimatur. That makes Jesus “divine” BUT not ontologically “God” – he was God to them like Moses was God to Pharaoh i.e., Jesus was God’s Man for the hour doing God’s job… which is WHY Jesus could say “if you’ve seen me you’ve seen the Father” and “I and the Father are one” i.e., they were on the SAME page.
Again Jeff… what was “Christ’s teaching about Himself” in terms of divinity and what that was meant to mean?
Here is a more consistent, I think, explanation of Jn. 8.58 (from Christianmonotheism.com) If it is not convincing, I have others worded differently.
Jesus’ use of the divine title “I AM” [Gk., ego eimi] in John 8, verses 24 and 58 proves
his deity.
Response: At John 8:58 Jesus says, “Truly, truly, I say to you, before Abraham was, I
am.” Trinitarians relate this statement to the account of Exodus 3:14 where “God said to
Moses, ‘I AM WHO I AM.’ And He said, ‘Say this to the people of Israel, “I AM has sent
me to you.”’” Was Jesus applying the title I AM to himself? Interestingly, someone other
than Jesus uses this exact same Greek phrase only ten verses later. At John 9:9 a man
whom Jesus had healed also says “I am.”8
[ego eimi] Should we conclude that this man is
part of a triune God? Certainly not, so the simple statement I am does not prove deity.
The I AM title was not revealed to Abraham, the ancestor mentioned by Jesus, but to
Moses hundreds of years after Abraham’s death. In his statement Jesus was expressing
his pre-eminence over Abraham in the plan of God. Why, then, did the Jews want to
stone him for what he said? To the Jews this self-exaltation by someone they considered
a nobody was a blasphemous degradation of Abraham’s position as a prophet in special
covenant with God, and they wanted to stone him for it. (Compare to the situation at
Acts 6:11.)
In John 8:24 Jesus proclaimed, “If you do not believe that I am, you shall die in your
sins.” Was he now alluding to the divine title? Twelve verses earlier he said, “I am the
light of the world; he who follows me will not walk in darkness, but will have the light of
life.” So what Jesus meant in verse 24 was simply, ‘If you do not believe that I am [who I
claim to be, namely, the light of the world], you shall die in your sins.’
Here is a more consistent, I think, explanation of Jn. 8.58 (from Christianmonotheism.com) If it is not convincing, I have others worded differently.
Jesus’ use of the divine title “I AM” [Gk., ego eimi] in John 8, verses 24 and 58 proves
his deity.
Response: At John 8:58 Jesus says, “Truly, truly, I say to you, before Abraham was, I
am.” Trinitarians relate this statement to the account of Exodus 3:14 where “God said to
Moses, ‘I AM WHO I AM.’ And He said, ‘Say this to the people of Israel, “I AM has sent
me to you.”’” Was Jesus applying the title I AM to himself? Interestingly, someone other
than Jesus uses this exact same Greek phrase only ten verses later. At John 9:9 a man
whom Jesus had healed also says “I am.”8
[ego eimi] Should we conclude that this man is
part of a triune God? Certainly not, so the simple statement I am does not prove deity.
The I AM title was not revealed to Abraham, the ancestor mentioned by Jesus, but to
Moses hundreds of years after Abraham’s death. In his statement Jesus was expressing
his pre-eminence over Abraham in the plan of God. Why, then, did the Jews want to
stone him for what he said? To the Jews this self-exaltation by someone they considered
a nobody was a blasphemous degradation of Abraham’s position as a prophet in special
covenant with God, and they wanted to stone him for it. (Compare to the situation at
Acts 6:11.)
In John 8:24 Jesus proclaimed, “If you do not believe that I am, you shall die in your
sins.” Was he now alluding to the divine title? Twelve verses earlier he said, “I am the
light of the world; he who follows me will not walk in darkness, but will have the light of
life.” So what Jesus meant in verse 24 was simply, ‘If you do not believe that I am [who I
claim to be, namely, the light of the world], you shall die in your sins.’
Here is a more consistent, I think, explanation of Jn. 8.58 (from Christianmonotheism.com) If it is not convincing, I have others worded differently.
Jesus’ use of the divine title “I AM” [Gk., ego eimi] in John 8, verses 24 and 58 proves
his deity.
Response: At John 8:58 Jesus says, “Truly, truly, I say to you, before Abraham was, I
am.” Trinitarians relate this statement to the account of Exodus 3:14 where “God said to
Moses, ‘I AM WHO I AM.’ And He said, ‘Say this to the people of Israel, “I AM has sent
me to you.”’” Was Jesus applying the title I AM to himself? Interestingly, someone other
than Jesus uses this exact same Greek phrase only ten verses later. At John 9:9 a man
whom Jesus had healed also says “I am.”8
[ego eimi] Should we conclude that this man is
part of a triune God? Certainly not, so the simple statement I am does not prove deity.
The I AM title was not revealed to Abraham, the ancestor mentioned by Jesus, but to
Moses hundreds of years after Abraham’s death. In his statement Jesus was expressing
his pre-eminence over Abraham in the plan of God. Why, then, did the Jews want to
stone him for what he said? To the Jews this self-exaltation by someone they considered
a nobody was a blasphemous degradation of Abraham’s position as a prophet in special
covenant with God, and they wanted to stone him for it. (Compare to the situation at
Acts 6:11.)
In John 8:24 Jesus proclaimed, “If you do not believe that I am, you shall die in your
sins.” Was he now alluding to the divine title? Twelve verses earlier he said, “I am the
light of the world; he who follows me will not walk in darkness, but will have the light of
life.” So what Jesus meant in verse 24 was simply, ‘If you do not believe that I am [who I
claim to be, namely, the light of the world], you shall die in your sins.’
“Isn’t the heart of unbelief natural man’s hatred of God and his grace?” You couldn’t have expressed more perfectly the most errant of evangelical assumptions i.e., that natural man “hates God”, WRONG! Natural man is ignorant and or agnostic with regards to “God” – where hatred is learnt is via the imposition of false notions as to the personage of God, i.e., that God is a vengeful monster lurking with wrath at the nearest of infractions according to his capricious whims. Religianity has cast forth this vile caricature of God, so little wonder “thinking people” reject it – I too reject it.
Jesus wasn’t “proclaiming” divinity per se but rather declaring I AM he… listen to me, lest you perish, as per:
A reasonable question would be, when did not understanding the orthodox Trinity doctrine become the same as being a Muslim. The doctrine as it stands today did not exist for 3 to 400 years. All of those saints who were martyred in the first century had no “Trinity”, as such, and even if they did it was more like Tertullian’s version and not called by the worshipful term.
Christian faith, above all else, involves fellowship with God through the reconciliation that is accessed through the Lordship of Jesus Christ. This is where Jesus planted the seed. This is where the apostles built upon the foundation. If understanding the orthodox view of the Trinity was a part of this foundation, I think Jesus Himself would have given a more systematic presentation on the construction of the deity.
Now, to be sure, I have no big issue with the Trinitarian view. The Godhead is a difficult issue. But understanding it is not where the seed in planted and salvation begins.
Having been raised in an atheist household, I never even considered the issue until quite some time after I was saved by a supernatural revelation that Jesus was the Son of God, that He was crucified for my sins, and that I must leave my life behind and follow Him as a disciple.
By the time I began to consider various Christian teachings on the godhead, I had already led many young people to the Lord, and seen many lives changed- all without any more doctrinal knowledge than I had accumulated through my own reading of the scriptures. Ironicly, of all the things the Holy Spirit instructed me in, the Trinity was not a priority for some reason.
So while I fully agree that some worship their theology and a shallow relationship with God, and not everyone who believes that Jesus “is” knows Him in a saving way…
I dont think some of the doctrines people levy, within their organizations, as bottom line salvation requirements will all stand the light of Day.
I believe in the deity of Jesus, but I don’t believe He is equal to the Father, and I can point to so many verses that prove it so(for me). So why must I embrace a term that commu nicates something I dont believe? Even tho what I believe is close to it, what I believe is not the same…
“For so it pleased the Father to make all the fulness of deity dwell in Him.” As I read that, His deity is made full at the Father’s pleasure.
“All authority on heaven and on earth is given me by my Father”. As I read that Jesus has no inherent authority over all things that was not given to Him.
“But when He says, ‘All things are put in subjection,’ it is evident that He is excepted who put all things in subjection to Him. 28 When all things are subjected to Him, then the Son Himself also will be subjected to the One who subjected all things to Him, so that God may be all in all.”
As I read that Jesus began under the Father’s authority and will finish under the Father’s authority, until the point at which there is no more need for authority, because all are one in love, having passed through the reconciliation that will come to all as they bow the knee to His Lordship and confess it unto the glory of God the Father, whether in this age or the one to come.
Certainly by many I am considered to be incorrect. There are other ways to view those verses. But for the life of me I can’t see how my views are in any way sacriligeous or in any way contrary to saving faith or knowing Him.
Many people have an ‘authoritarian’ structure to their worldview thinking that if someone has authority over another then they are better or more important or if someone is under authority then they are less. Though God the Father could have delegated authority to one less than himself this is not a truthful view of the Father and Son who are equally God. This is important because it helps us understand that the call for our obedience is not demeaning. Though our resistance to obey demeans ourselves. God the Son is not lesser than God the Father because He is under His authority! How do we know that? Because of worship. Jesus himself made it plain that God alone is to be worshiped when he rebuked Satan and then later Jesus received worship from Thomas who called Christ both Lord and God.
And thankfully all mankind will likewise happily bow in worship to Christ as Lord God, hopefully sooner, but definitely later. And you too
I am defending the Trinity in this discussion, but please note that in my comments about Muslims I limited my comments to their rejection of Christ’s Divinity. It is understood that the wording of the Trinity doctrine was developed over time, that is given. However, earlier Paidon has been objecting saying that it does not matter what ones teaches about Christ, but only that one obeys Christ. So I highlighted the Muslims as an extreme example of a religion that claims to obey Christ yet they reject his Divinity. However, accepting the Divinity of Christ has been a cardinal part of Christian faith from the beginning. This is easily seen when Thomas’ eyes of faith were opened and he worshiped Jesus as Lord God. So the Muslims are obviously not Christian, in fact they persecute Christians. Nor is anyone Christian who rejects Christ’s Divinity.
Why then would mankind, both religious Jew and irreligious Roman conspire to crucify Christ? Because they had a false view of God? Well yes they did have a false view of God… that they were happy with. However, when the true God presented himself to mankind in the flesh our vile natures were exposed for what they are, self lovers and God haters. Why are you rejecting the gospel of Romans 3:9-31? Why ruin the good news by being offended about the bad news. Yes we are God haters by nature, but the heart of the good news is that God graciously loves us anyway! He loves sinners!
I fear this will go straight over your head BUT… to Rome Jesus was an insurrectionist, i.e., a challenge to Caesar, that is, Jesus is LORD not Caesar, and thus must be quashed. And to the Jews…
The Jewish leadership crucified Jesus purely out of self interest.
This is just so dripping with fundy evangelical-speak without biblical warrant…
Who’s rejecting Rom 3… ?? that passage DOESN’T declare all “God haters” as you are reading into the text (a constant problem), it states “all in sin” – THAT’S different. Your arbitrary carte blanch statements are just too much.
Perhaps YOU should own this yourself and STOP dumping this vile crap on all and sundry, i.e., YOU may have been a ‘God hater’ BUT that does NOT give you permission to misrepresent Scripture as assigning all else as God haters… this is just FALSE!!
I’ll respond after church.
According to 
So HOW is it you let (choice) the natural you hate God given you know He loves you so? 