The post rightly points out the finite requirement of hell, which is all the more reason to recognize that it is something that occurs in this life, not the next one.
As for afterlife, the Bible teaches that everyone goes to Sheol (Hades) at death until the resurrection (i.e. coming of the kingdom), and subsequently everyone goes to heaven.
BlogForthelordjesuscurrentevents said, 'As for afterlife, the Bible teaches that everyone goes to Sheol (Hades) at death until the resurrection (i.e. coming of the kingdom), and subsequently everyone goes to heaven.'
Except you may have forgotten that little part after everyone is bodily resurrected, some of them will be thrown into the lake of fire, no? Something about your name not being found written in the book of life (Rev.20:15)?
James, is correct that I did misunderstand his post. I am working through that with him on his blog.
Nonetheless, I stand by the position that hell (i.e. Gehenna) is something that occurs in this life and not the next one. Moreover, I stand by my second paragraph exactly as written.
'Moreover, I stand by my second paragraph exactly as written.'
Standing by an opinion is just that, one you're certainly entitled to. Aren't we all entitled to our opinions? But that's just a nice way to not have to deal with the text, isn't it? It could be that in the world of opinions, yours could be wrong, and mine right. After all, without any standard of measurement or truth, who's to say whose is right?
"Apparently Mike also denies the trinity, so he's got bigger problems than universalism (his own unique spin on universalism being problematic enough)."
So he's a unitarian universalist but not a Unitarian Universalist, eh?
Steve Drake, you seem to suggest I stake my claim on my opinion rather than the text, yet it is the text that led me to my claim. I didn't know what Sheol (Hades), much less have an opinion on it, until the Bible taught me the concept.
In case you haven't seen it, I lay out the biblical case (that is, what the text says) here: http://wp.me/PNthc-i6
Steve Drake, the lake of fire in on earth in this life, too. It's the fire of judgment Jesus described in Matt 25 related to the coming of the kingdom.
Bible cosmology is simply. In the old age it was heaven above, earth here, Sheol(Hades) below - analogous to the heavens, the earth, and the sea. In the new age which Christ brought there are only the heavens and the earth and there is no more sea (that's why death and Hades are thrown into the lake of fire).
Even if you believe in the Trinity, you have to acknowledge that the New Testament does not teach it as such. Surely you recognize, that even if it is true, that there was a progressive revelation of Jesus' full identity in the NT. If you will acknowledge this, then I think you have a basis for teaching me where I am wrong about the Trinity and I will listen to you with an open mind.
"In the new age which Christ brought there are only the heavens and the earth and there is no more sea (that's why death and Hades are thrown into the lake of fire)."
So the place where the rich man was in Luke 16:19-31, a place of torment mind you, was "thrown into the lake of fire?" Also, where exactly were the spirits that Jesus proclaimed to per 1 Peter 3:18-20?
blogforthelordjesuscurrentevents said,
"Even if you believe in the Trinity, you have to acknowledge that the New Testament does not teach it as such. Surely you recognize, that even if it is true, that there was a progressive revelation of Jesus' full identity in the NT. If you will acknowledge this, then I think you have a basis for teaching me where I am wrong about the Trinity and I will listen to you with an open mind."
What do you mean that the NT does not teach it as such? The NT teaches the deity of the Father, the Son, the Holy Spirit yet distinguishes them as persons. The NT also teaches monotheism. Hence, the NT teaches trinitarianism.
Also, what do you mean by there was a progressive revelation of Jesus' full identity in the NT? I really am just asking for clarification. No doubt the Apostles did add clarification to the doctrine of the deity of Christ but there is also no doubt that the Gospels (especially the Gosepl of John), through both Jesus' statements as well as authorial comments, teach on Jesus' identity.
“Steve Drake, you seem to suggest I stake my claim on my opinion rather than the text, yet it is the text that led me to my claim. I didn't know what Sheol (Hades), much less have an opinion on it, until the Bible taught me the concept.”
There are various word-studies and monographs on sheol, not to mention its NT counterparts, as well as archeological evidence from burial customs, funerary cults, &c.
“Steve Drake, the lake of fire in on earth in this life, too. It's the fire of judgment Jesus described in Matt 25 related to the coming of the kingdom.”
You assume what you need to prove.
“Bible cosmology is simply. In the old age it was heaven above, earth here, Sheol(Hades) below - analogous to the heavens, the earth, and the sea. In the new age which Christ brought there are only the heavens and the earth and there is no more sea (that's why death and Hades are thrown into the lake of fire).”
Them folks are sooo smart huh Spike? http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ov-1S8Xxd94
"Though God intended men should believe it to be certain that sinners are liable to an eternal punishment, yet they suppose that they have been so cunning as to find out that it is not certain. And so that God had not laid his design so deep, but that such cunning men as they can discern the cheat and defeat the design, because they have found out that there is no necessary connection between the threatening of eternal punishment, and the execution of that threatening."- The Eternity of Hell’s Torments. A Sermon Preached in April, 1739 By Jonathan Edwards, A.M. Pastor of the Church of Christ in Northampton.
1 Pet 3 refers to Jesus speaking to those in Sheol (Hades) which would have included Lazarus and the rich man (or the people they represent) from Luke 16.
All inhabitants of Sheol (Hades) were released at the resurrection of the dead which occurred at the coming of the kingdom of God ( http://bit.ly/f2iwox ).
The gospels reveal that His followers considered Him to be a man of God and a prophet. He always downplayed His identity as the Messiah until after He was raised from the dead. Once He was raised from the dead and He explained the Scriptures His disciples, there was no doubt among them that He was the Messiah. My question to you is when and how do you think that they learned He was more than the Messiah? And, since they didn't write the word "trinity" or "second person of the trinity," how could they understand God as a trinity if they didn't use this language?
I don't have an issue with what you said about monographs on Sheol. What's your point here and how does it refute what I say?
As for your statement that I've assume what I need to prove, haven't we both in these comments just asserted what we believe? If you haven't proven your assertion, why do you insist that mine must be proven?
By the way, I lay out my case at
http://wp.me/PNthc-i6
and
http://bit.ly/f2iwox
I don't know how to make sense of your statement "wooden literalism." It's a neat-sounding phrase but I don't see how applies. For one thing, the tiered cosmologies (old and new) are figurative, not literal.
I don't have to reinvent the wheel everyone a newbie commenter pops in to ride his hobbyhorse. I've defended the traditional view of hell on many occasions. Check the archives.
You said: "All inhabitants of Sheol (Hades) were released at the resurrection of the dead which occurred at the coming of the kingdom of God (http://bit.ly/f2iwox)."
That's a bit of an odd eschatology in the link you provided. The Second Coming already happened and did so late in the 1st Century A.D.? Sounds like preterism taken way too far. Looks like I need to stop eating the bread and drinking the wine on the first Sunday of every month, huh (1 Cor. 11:26)?
You said: "The gospels reveal that His followers considered Him to be a man of God and a prophet. He always downplayed His identity as the Messiah until after He was raised from the dead."
Please expand on this. I do not see Jesus downplaying His identity as the Messiah in the least bit.
You said: "My question to you is when and how do you think that they learned He was more than the Messiah? And, since they didn't write the word "trinity" or "second person of the trinity," how could they understand God as a trinity if they didn't use this language?"
The disciples were there to witness Jesus identifying Himself as God and since I doubt that any of them would label Jesus as a liar I would think they (or at least most of them) would have learned then. Now, I will concede that perhaps clarification was added for some of them in their learning of Jesus' identity when He opened their minds to understand the Scriptures post His resurrection (Lk. 24:45) if that's what you're getting at.
The words "Trinity" and "second person of the Trinity" don't have to be written exactly as such for the disciples who wrote the Gospels to have believed as such. Again, Jesus' disciples were monotheists. And again, the Gospels identify the Father, the Son, and the Holy Spirit as being divine yet distinguishable as persons. As such, the disciples only had two options: either abandon monotheism for polytheism or embrace a triune understanding of God. The Gospels and the epistles of disciples' that wrote reveal the latter.
There was also something in that link you provided that confused me.
You said: "Simple: Jesus Christ had come the first time in the flesh as a man; He came the second time in the spirit as God."
Since Jesus' resurrected form was both tangible and imperishable, how can this be? Do you have some sort of Baha'i-esque belief that Jesus, as resurrected, did not have a physical body?
It also really seems that your eschatological beliefs hinge on your theology proper. It seems like if you abandon unitarianism then a lot of your arguments for your eschatological positions fall apart.
Re: downplaying Messianic identity, Luke 9:20-22; Matt 16:20; Mark 8:27-30
Re: revelation of identity, yes, Luke 24 was surely a milestone for them. Yet, I ask you, what precisely did they learn at that time?
If they learned there was a trinity, why didn't they preach the trinity? And if the trinity language wasn't coined until Tertullian well over a hundred years later, why do we have to use that language today?
I don't know anything about Bahai. I do know from the Scriptures that Jesus could appear and disappear at will so I don't see how we could insist that He had to come again in visible form.
Actually, what you call my "theology proper" came many years after I realized the Scripture was teaching that the Second Coming was a promise fulfilled.
Blogforthelord... said: --- He always downplayed His identity as the Messiah until after He was raised from the dead. ---
A) You're incorrect here. B) Even if He had always downplayed His identity, it's would not have been for the reason you stated--that He needed to be raised from the dead first.
As to A), Jesus only downplayed His identity as the Messiah when He was dealing with the Jewish leaders. The Samaritan woman at the well simply says: "I know that Messiah is coming (he who is called Christ). When he comes, he will tell us all things" (John 4:25). Note that she isn't even asking Jesus if He is the Messiah; she just points out that the Messiah will explain all things.
Jesus responds point-blank: "I who speak to you am he" (verse 26).
So the question is, why did Jesus behave that way toward the Samaritans, but not toward the Jews? It's not because He needed to die first, for John 4 happened well before Christ's death.
The main difference between the Samaritans and the Jews, as it came to religious views (as opposed to racial differences), was that the Samaritans only had the Torah, while the Jews had the rest of the Old Testament. The Torah specifically promised the Messiah, but it was fairly non-descript. The rest of the Old Testament gave a lot more detail.
The net result, however, was that the Jews invented a tradition of who the Messiah would be--a tradition that He would be a conquering warrior who would rule politically. The Samaritans, lacking this false tradition, therefore held a more appropriate view of who the Messiah was. As a result, when the Samaritan mentions the Messiah, Jesus is fully able to say, "I am he" because He was what the Samaritan expected of the Messiah. When the Jews asked if He was the Messiah, their view was a false view of the Messiah. Jesus therefore answered in a way that would provide as little confusion as possible, given their faulty understanding of the terms.
Interesting. So then every Christian post the first century A.D. has wrongly been accepting the administration of this sacrament?
You said: "Re: downplaying Messianic identity, Luke 9:20-22; Matt 16:20; Mark 8:27-30"
Why do you believe that Jesus is downplaying His Messianic identity by instructing His disciples to tell no one of the truth they know? What is your opinion on what Green says in his commentary:
"The disciples must maintain silence because the Son fo Man must suffer and be vindicated. This means, first, that Jesus' requisite suffering and vindications have not yet been integrated into their messianic conception, and, second, that the time for proclaiming openly the messiahship of Jesus will come following the events Jesus has predicted. Jesus, then, uses this Son of Man-saying to adapt messianic belief to reflect more completely the whole of the purpose of God, and, in doing so, to introduce explicit narrative needs regarding his execution and resurrection, and to presage the proclamation of the "suffering Messiah" (e.g. Acts 3:17-18; 17:3) in the apostolic ministry of Acts." (Joel B. Green, The Gospel of Luke [Grand Rapids: MI: W. B. Eerdmans Pub., 1997], 370, available in preview form from Google Books here).
You said: "Re: revelation of identity, yes, Luke 24 was surely a milestone for them. Yet, I ask you, what precisely did they learn at that time?"
The purpose of Jesus' opening their minds in Luke 24 was, as Luke 24:27 states, to "interpreted to them in all the Scriptures the things concerning himself," though, given the context (e.g. the nature of the Christ, vv. 7, 26, 44, 46-47), this concerned the fulfillment of the Messianic promises. Did Jesus go into detail about the Messianic texts of the Tanakh that reveal His divinity (e.g. Ps. 110, cf. Heb 1)? Perhaps, but this was not the primary purpose of Him opening their minds to understand the Scriptures.
You said: "If they learned there was a trinity, why didn't they preach the trinity?"
If they preached or taught on the divinity of the three Persons, as distinct divine Persons, then they have, in turn, preached and taught the Trinity. Is there some kind of precise, detailed, technical explanation that you're saying they had to have preached or taught? They do go into detail concerning the personhood and divinity of the three Persons, even speaking of times prior to the Incarnation (e.g. the Carmen Christi, Php. 2:5-11).
You said: "And if the trinity language wasn't coined until Tertullian well over a hundred years later, why do we have to use that language today?"
Are you asking why no one used the exact term "Trinity," at least frequently, until Tertullian? Well, first and foremost, while Tertullian may have "coined" the term he wasn't the first Church Father to use the term. Theophilus of Antioch work To Autolycus in the 2nd century is the oldest work we currently have which uses the term. However, as to why all the Church Fathers didn't use that exact term, I don't really know nor do I think it matters much if they believed and taught the doctrine. The term "Trinity" is really just a shorthand way of saying "the Father, the Son, and the Holy Spirit," with an understanding of these three as distinct, divine persons as well as their roles and relationship to one another. And, of course, the earliest of Church Fathers used the language of "the Father, the Son, and the Holy Spirit," along with (though varying among them) offering comments on the divinity of the three as distinct persons.
You said: "I don't know anything about Bahai. I do know from the Scriptures that Jesus could appear and disappear at will so I don't see how we could insist that He had to come again in visible form."
The ability of our Lord to appear and disappear was a function of His divinity. However, given the nature of Jesus' post resurrection form (e.g. glorified, imperishable, incorruptible), and given the imagery of Him in John's vision recorded in the Book of Revelation, there is good reason to insist that He will come again in a tangible, physical, visible form because He is forever tangible, physical, and visible.
You said: "Actually, what you call my "theology proper" came many years after I realized the Scripture was teaching that the Second Coming was a promise fulfilled."
Huh? Theology proper refers to the study of the nature and attributes of God. What does your eschatological belief have to do with theology proper?
If Peter doesn't mind, I'd like to go ahead and respond to blogforthelordjesuscurrentevents.
blogforthelordjesuscurrentevents,
You said: "So, let me ask you, when and how did Jesus reveal to His disciples that God was a trinity and that He was the second person of it?"
If by "reveal to His disciples that God was a trinity" you are asking when and how Jesus revealed to them along the lines of explaining the subject "God is a Trinity," there's no reason to believe, from the Scriptures, that Jesus necessarily went about it this way; though He might have offered clarification when we went through the Messianic texts that speak of His divinity (e.g. Ps 110) in Luke 24 as I previously mentioned. As I said before, the instances where that Jesus identified Himself as God yet distinct from the Father could have very well been where some, if not most, of the disciples first learned that, in the very least, God was not one in being and one in person. We aren't told exactly when each of the individual disciples finally grasped the teaching, nor do we really need to if the Gospels, as well as the other books of the NT, teach the doctrine. What are we told is that Jesus identified Himself as God (both in the flesh as well having existed as God prior to the Incarnation) yet distinct from the Father and from the Holy Spirit, that in the instances where He did so in front of a Jewish audience the Jews wanted to stone Him because He had claimed as such, and that none of His disciples ever hinted at thinking He was lying (or just plain crazy).
As for when Jesus revealed that "He was the second person of it [the Trinity]," I hope you do realize that the identification of Jesus as the second person of the Trinity is done so as a means of being consistent with the doxological "the Father, the Son, and the Holy Spirit." Though, I think I have also heard the term used to reference the role of the Son in God's decree to save His people.
You said: "And when do we see in the Scriptures that the disciples began teaching this?"
Are you talking about where in the Book of Acts is it recorded that they preached and/or taught on what the doctrine of the Trinity teaches or just anywhere in the NT post the Gospels?
Also, again, you must realize that if the disciples taught the divinity of the Father, the Son, and the Holy Spirit yet did so distinguishing between the three as distinct persons then the disciples, in turn, taught the doctrine of the Trinity given their monotheism. You speak as to say that if the disciples did not preach a sermon titled, "An Explanation of the Trinity," then they did not teach it.
I affirm every statement that the Scriptures make about the Father, about the Son, and about the Holy Spirit. Yet, if I don't use the words trinity, trinitarian, or triune then I'm told I'm not orthodox. My question is, if the apostles can be considered orthodox without using those terms, why can't I?
You said: "I affirm every statement that the Scriptures make about the Father, about the Son, and about the Holy Spirit. Yet, if I don't use the words trinity, trinitarian, or triune then I'm told I'm not orthodox. My question is, if the apostles can be considered orthodox without using those terms, why can't I?"
I don't believe anyone is saying you have to use those exact terms to be orthodox. What we are saying is that if you do not believe what those words represent, meaning what the doctrine of the Trinity teaches, then you are not orthodox. You're correct in saying that the Apostles did not use those exact terms. However, the Apostles did teach the doctrine those terms represent and, as such, to deny what the doctrine teaches makes you not only unorthodox but, to be blunt (and unpolitically correct), a heretic on the path of destruction (your universalism aside).
We've probably carried the discussion on this post as far as we should as I think we've each made our respective positions clear by now.
By calling me a heretic you have at least done me the courtesy of being clear in your speech so I can thank you for that. However, as to whether that charge is valid, I appeal to the Lord to decide.
You may trust the words of church fathers if you wish. I will rely on the words of the Lord and His apostles.
You said: "We've probably carried the discussion on this post as far as we should as I think we've each made our respective positions clear by now."
I actually am still pretty much in the dark as to your exact belief on this topic. Do you have a link explaining what it is exactly you believe?
Given that you said "as to whether that charge is valid, I appeal to the Lord to decide," it seems pretty clear that you do deny what the doctrine of the Trinity teaches. However, I haven't, at least in this discussion, seen you lay out your alternative position.
You said: "You may trust the words of church fathers if you wish. I will rely on the words of the Lord and His apostles."
Of those who comment on this blog, I actually am probably one of the those least versed in the works of the Church Fathers. I know enough to make statements that I think it is rather clear they held to the doctrine currently being discussed, though.
I also have a feeling that you are not simply relying on the words of the Lord and His Apostles, just as every person who has denied what the doctrine of the Trinity teaches has not. However, since you have seemingly stated you are done with this discussion, I guess I will not be able to dig out what else it is that you're relying on.
The post rightly points out the finite requirement of hell, which is all the more reason to recognize that it is something that occurs in this life, not the next one.
ReplyDeleteAs for afterlife, the Bible teaches that everyone goes to Sheol (Hades) at death until the resurrection (i.e. coming of the kingdom), and subsequently everyone goes to heaven.
Mike (the author of the comment above) posted a similar comment on my blog, but he misunderstands the argument. See my comment in response.
ReplyDeleteBlogForthelordjesuscurrentevents said,
ReplyDelete'As for afterlife, the Bible teaches that everyone goes to Sheol (Hades) at death until the resurrection (i.e. coming of the kingdom), and subsequently everyone goes to heaven.'
Except you may have forgotten that little part after everyone is bodily resurrected, some of them will be thrown into the lake of fire, no? Something about your name not being found written in the book of life (Rev.20:15)?
James, is correct that I did misunderstand his post. I am working through that with him on his blog.
ReplyDeleteNonetheless, I stand by the position that hell (i.e. Gehenna) is something that occurs in this life and not the next one. Moreover, I stand by my second paragraph exactly as written.
'Moreover, I stand by my second paragraph exactly as written.'
ReplyDeleteStanding by an opinion is just that, one you're certainly entitled to. Aren't we all entitled to our opinions? But that's just a nice way to not have to deal with the text, isn't it? It could be that in the world of opinions, yours could be wrong, and mine right. After all, without any standard of measurement or truth, who's to say whose is right?
Apparently Mike also denies the trinity, so he's got bigger problems than universalism (his own unique spin on universalism being problematic enough).
ReplyDelete"Apparently Mike also denies the trinity, so he's got bigger problems than universalism (his own unique spin on universalism being problematic enough)."
ReplyDeleteSo he's a unitarian universalist but not a Unitarian Universalist, eh?
Steve Drake, you seem to suggest I stake my claim on my opinion rather than the text, yet it is the text that led me to my claim. I didn't know what Sheol (Hades), much less have an opinion on it, until the Bible taught me the concept.
ReplyDeleteIn case you haven't seen it, I lay out the biblical case (that is, what the text says) here:
http://wp.me/PNthc-i6
Steve Drake, the lake of fire in on earth in this life, too. It's the fire of judgment Jesus described in Matt 25 related to the coming of the kingdom.
ReplyDeleteBible cosmology is simply. In the old age it was heaven above, earth here, Sheol(Hades) below - analogous to the heavens, the earth, and the sea. In the new age which Christ brought there are only the heavens and the earth and there is no more sea (that's why death and Hades are thrown into the lake of fire).
Paul and Ryan D. McConnell,
ReplyDeleteEven if you believe in the Trinity, you have to acknowledge that the New Testament does not teach it as such. Surely you recognize, that even if it is true, that there was a progressive revelation of Jesus' full identity in the NT. If you will acknowledge this, then I think you have a basis for teaching me where I am wrong about the Trinity and I will listen to you with an open mind.
blogforthelordjesuscurrentevents said,
ReplyDelete"In the new age which Christ brought there are only the heavens and the earth and there is no more sea (that's why death and Hades are thrown into the lake of fire)."
So the place where the rich man was in Luke 16:19-31, a place of torment mind you, was "thrown into the lake of fire?" Also, where exactly were the spirits that Jesus proclaimed to per 1 Peter 3:18-20?
blogforthelordjesuscurrentevents said,
"Even if you believe in the Trinity, you have to acknowledge that the New Testament does not teach it as such. Surely you recognize, that even if it is true, that there was a progressive revelation of Jesus' full identity in the NT. If you will acknowledge this, then I think you have a basis for teaching me where I am wrong about the Trinity and I will listen to you with an open mind."
What do you mean that the NT does not teach it as such? The NT teaches the deity of the Father, the Son, the Holy Spirit yet distinguishes them as persons. The NT also teaches monotheism. Hence, the NT teaches trinitarianism.
Also, what do you mean by there was a progressive revelation of Jesus' full identity in the NT? I really am just asking for clarification. No doubt the Apostles did add clarification to the doctrine of the deity of Christ but there is also no doubt that the Gospels (especially the Gosepl of John), through both Jesus' statements as well as authorial comments, teach on Jesus' identity.
BLOGFORTHELORDJESUSCURRENTEVENTS SAID:
ReplyDelete“Steve Drake, you seem to suggest I stake my claim on my opinion rather than the text, yet it is the text that led me to my claim. I didn't know what Sheol (Hades), much less have an opinion on it, until the Bible taught me the concept.”
There are various word-studies and monographs on sheol, not to mention its NT counterparts, as well as archeological evidence from burial customs, funerary cults, &c.
“Steve Drake, the lake of fire in on earth in this life, too. It's the fire of judgment Jesus described in Matt 25 related to the coming of the kingdom.”
You assume what you need to prove.
“Bible cosmology is simply. In the old age it was heaven above, earth here, Sheol(Hades) below - analogous to the heavens, the earth, and the sea. In the new age which Christ brought there are only the heavens and the earth and there is no more sea (that's why death and Hades are thrown into the lake of fire).”
Wooden literalism.
Them folks are sooo smart huh Spike?
ReplyDeletehttp://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ov-1S8Xxd94
"Though God intended men should believe it to be certain that sinners are liable to an eternal punishment, yet they suppose that they have been so cunning as to find out that it is not certain. And so that God had not laid his design so deep, but that such cunning men as they can discern the cheat and defeat the design, because they have found out that there is no necessary connection between the threatening of eternal punishment, and the execution of that threatening."- The Eternity of Hell’s Torments.
A Sermon Preached in April, 1739
By Jonathan Edwards, A.M.
Pastor of the Church of Christ in Northampton.
Ryan D. McConnell,
ReplyDelete1 Pet 3 refers to Jesus speaking to those in Sheol (Hades) which would have included Lazarus and the rich man (or the people they represent) from Luke 16.
All inhabitants of Sheol (Hades) were released at the resurrection of the dead which occurred at the coming of the kingdom of God
( http://bit.ly/f2iwox ).
The gospels reveal that His followers considered Him to be a man of God and a prophet. He always downplayed His identity as the Messiah until after He was raised from the dead. Once He was raised from the dead and He explained the Scriptures His disciples, there was no doubt among them that He was the Messiah. My question to you is when and how do you think that they learned He was more than the Messiah? And, since they didn't write the word "trinity" or "second person of the trinity," how could they understand God as a trinity if they didn't use this language?
Steve,
ReplyDeleteI don't have an issue with what you said about monographs on Sheol. What's your point here and how does it refute what I say?
As for your statement that I've assume what I need to prove, haven't we both in these comments just asserted what we believe? If you haven't proven your assertion, why do you insist that mine must be proven?
By the way, I lay out my case at
http://wp.me/PNthc-i6
and
http://bit.ly/f2iwox
I don't know how to make sense of your statement "wooden literalism." It's a neat-sounding phrase but I don't see how applies. For one thing, the tiered cosmologies (old and new) are figurative, not literal.
I don't have to reinvent the wheel everyone a newbie commenter pops in to ride his hobbyhorse. I've defended the traditional view of hell on many occasions. Check the archives.
ReplyDeleteSteve,
ReplyDeleteThen you and I are even on that score, too. Moreover, I gave you direct links rather than just sending you to my archives.
Here they are again:
http://wp.me/PNthc-i6
http://bit.ly/f2iwox
If you choose not to read them, that is your right. But don't deceive yourself by saying I haven't offered a biblical case.
By the way, I admire your site and have found your resources helpful on many subjects.
blogforthelordjesuscurrentevents,
ReplyDeleteYou said: "All inhabitants of Sheol (Hades) were released at the resurrection of the dead which occurred at the coming of the kingdom of God (http://bit.ly/f2iwox)."
That's a bit of an odd eschatology in the link you provided. The Second Coming already happened and did so late in the 1st Century A.D.? Sounds like preterism taken way too far. Looks like I need to stop eating the bread and drinking the wine on the first Sunday of every month, huh (1 Cor. 11:26)?
You said: "The gospels reveal that His followers considered Him to be a man of God and a prophet. He always downplayed His identity as the Messiah until after He was raised from the dead."
Please expand on this. I do not see Jesus downplaying His identity as the Messiah in the least bit.
You said: "My question to you is when and how do you think that they learned He was more than the Messiah? And, since they didn't write the word "trinity" or "second person of the trinity," how could they understand God as a trinity if they didn't use this language?"
The disciples were there to witness Jesus identifying Himself as God and since I doubt that any of them would label Jesus as a liar I would think they (or at least most of them) would have learned then. Now, I will concede that perhaps clarification was added for some of them in their learning of Jesus' identity when He opened their minds to understand the Scriptures post His resurrection (Lk. 24:45) if that's what you're getting at.
The words "Trinity" and "second person of the Trinity" don't have to be written exactly as such for the disciples who wrote the Gospels to have believed as such. Again, Jesus' disciples were monotheists. And again, the Gospels identify the Father, the Son, and the Holy Spirit as being divine yet distinguishable as persons. As such, the disciples only had two options: either abandon monotheism for polytheism or embrace a triune understanding of God. The Gospels and the epistles of disciples' that wrote reveal the latter.
blogforthelordjesuscurrentevents,
ReplyDeleteThere was also something in that link you provided that confused me.
You said: "Simple: Jesus Christ had come the first time in the flesh as a man; He came the second time in the spirit as God."
Since Jesus' resurrected form was both tangible and imperishable, how can this be? Do you have some sort of Baha'i-esque belief that Jesus, as resurrected, did not have a physical body?
It also really seems that your eschatological beliefs hinge on your theology proper. It seems like if you abandon unitarianism then a lot of your arguments for your eschatological positions fall apart.
Ryan D. McConnell,
ReplyDeleteRe: 1 Cor 11:26, yes.
Re: downplaying Messianic identity, Luke 9:20-22; Matt 16:20; Mark 8:27-30
Re: revelation of identity, yes, Luke 24 was surely a milestone for them. Yet, I ask you, what precisely did they learn at that time?
If they learned there was a trinity, why didn't they preach the trinity? And if the trinity language wasn't coined until Tertullian well over a hundred years later, why do we have to use that language today?
Ryan D. McConnell,
ReplyDeleteI don't know anything about Bahai. I do know from the Scriptures that Jesus could appear and disappear at will so I don't see how we could insist that He had to come again in visible form.
Actually, what you call my "theology proper" came many years after I realized the Scripture was teaching that the Second Coming was a promise fulfilled.
Blogforthelord... said:
ReplyDelete---
He always downplayed His identity as the Messiah until after He was raised from the dead.
---
A) You're incorrect here. B) Even if He had always downplayed His identity, it's would not have been for the reason you stated--that He needed to be raised from the dead first.
As to A), Jesus only downplayed His identity as the Messiah when He was dealing with the Jewish leaders. The Samaritan woman at the well simply says: "I know that Messiah is coming (he who is called Christ). When he comes, he will tell us all things" (John 4:25). Note that she isn't even asking Jesus if He is the Messiah; she just points out that the Messiah will explain all things.
Jesus responds point-blank: "I who speak to you am he" (verse 26).
So the question is, why did Jesus behave that way toward the Samaritans, but not toward the Jews? It's not because He needed to die first, for John 4 happened well before Christ's death.
The main difference between the Samaritans and the Jews, as it came to religious views (as opposed to racial differences), was that the Samaritans only had the Torah, while the Jews had the rest of the Old Testament. The Torah specifically promised the Messiah, but it was fairly non-descript. The rest of the Old Testament gave a lot more detail.
The net result, however, was that the Jews invented a tradition of who the Messiah would be--a tradition that He would be a conquering warrior who would rule politically. The Samaritans, lacking this false tradition, therefore held a more appropriate view of who the Messiah was. As a result, when the Samaritan mentions the Messiah, Jesus is fully able to say, "I am he" because He was what the Samaritan expected of the Messiah. When the Jews asked if He was the Messiah, their view was a false view of the Messiah. Jesus therefore answered in a way that would provide as little confusion as possible, given their faulty understanding of the terms.
Peter Pike,
ReplyDeleteSo, let me ask you, when and how did Jesus reveal to His disciples that God was a trinity and that He was the second person of it?
And when do we see in the Scriptures that the disciples began teaching this?
Blogforthelordjesuscurrentevents,
ReplyDeleteYou said: "Re: 1 Cor 11:26, yes."
Interesting. So then every Christian post the first century A.D. has wrongly been accepting the administration of this sacrament?
You said: "Re: downplaying Messianic identity, Luke 9:20-22; Matt 16:20; Mark 8:27-30"
Why do you believe that Jesus is downplaying His Messianic identity by instructing His disciples to tell no one of the truth they know? What is your opinion on what Green says in his commentary:
"The disciples must maintain silence because the Son fo Man must suffer and be vindicated. This means, first, that Jesus' requisite suffering and vindications have not yet been integrated into their messianic conception, and, second, that the time for proclaiming openly the messiahship of Jesus will come following the events Jesus has predicted. Jesus, then, uses this Son of Man-saying to adapt messianic belief to reflect more completely the whole of the purpose of God, and, in doing so, to introduce explicit narrative needs regarding his execution and resurrection, and to presage the proclamation of the "suffering Messiah" (e.g. Acts 3:17-18; 17:3) in the apostolic ministry of Acts." (Joel B. Green, The Gospel of Luke [Grand Rapids: MI: W. B. Eerdmans Pub., 1997], 370, available in preview form from Google Books here).
You said: "Re: revelation of identity, yes, Luke 24 was surely a milestone for them. Yet, I ask you, what precisely did they learn at that time?"
The purpose of Jesus' opening their minds in Luke 24 was, as Luke 24:27 states, to "interpreted to them in all the Scriptures the things concerning himself," though, given the context (e.g. the nature of the Christ, vv. 7, 26, 44, 46-47), this concerned the fulfillment of the Messianic promises. Did Jesus go into detail about the Messianic texts of the Tanakh that reveal His divinity (e.g. Ps. 110, cf. Heb 1)? Perhaps, but this was not the primary purpose of Him opening their minds to understand the Scriptures.
[continued below]
[continued from above]
ReplyDeleteBlogforthelordjesuscurrentevents,
You said: "If they learned there was a trinity, why didn't they preach the trinity?"
If they preached or taught on the divinity of the three Persons, as distinct divine Persons, then they have, in turn, preached and taught the Trinity. Is there some kind of precise, detailed, technical explanation that you're saying they had to have preached or taught? They do go into detail concerning the personhood and divinity of the three Persons, even speaking of times prior to the Incarnation (e.g. the Carmen Christi, Php. 2:5-11).
You said: "And if the trinity language wasn't coined until Tertullian well over a hundred years later, why do we have to use that language today?"
Are you asking why no one used the exact term "Trinity," at least frequently, until Tertullian? Well, first and foremost, while Tertullian may have "coined" the term he wasn't the first Church Father to use the term. Theophilus of Antioch work To Autolycus in the 2nd century is the oldest work we currently have which uses the term. However, as to why all the Church Fathers didn't use that exact term, I don't really know nor do I think it matters much if they believed and taught the doctrine. The term "Trinity" is really just a shorthand way of saying "the Father, the Son, and the Holy Spirit," with an understanding of these three as distinct, divine persons as well as their roles and relationship to one another. And, of course, the earliest of Church Fathers used the language of "the Father, the Son, and the Holy Spirit," along with (though varying among them) offering comments on the divinity of the three as distinct persons.
You said: "I don't know anything about Bahai. I do know from the Scriptures that Jesus could appear and disappear at will so I don't see how we could insist that He had to come again in visible form."
The ability of our Lord to appear and disappear was a function of His divinity. However, given the nature of Jesus' post resurrection form (e.g. glorified, imperishable, incorruptible), and given the imagery of Him in John's vision recorded in the Book of Revelation, there is good reason to insist that He will come again in a tangible, physical, visible form because He is forever tangible, physical, and visible.
You said: "Actually, what you call my "theology proper" came many years after I realized the Scripture was teaching that the Second Coming was a promise fulfilled."
Huh? Theology proper refers to the study of the nature and attributes of God. What does your eschatological belief have to do with theology proper?
Hmmmm... seems Blogger does care too much for my first post. I've published it twice and I was reading it in the comments window just a second ago.
ReplyDeletePerhaps a hiccup or perhaps it's in the spam filter?
If Peter doesn't mind, I'd like to go ahead and respond to blogforthelordjesuscurrentevents.
ReplyDeleteblogforthelordjesuscurrentevents,
You said: "So, let me ask you, when and how did Jesus reveal to His disciples that God was a trinity and that He was the second person of it?"
If by "reveal to His disciples that God was a trinity" you are asking when and how Jesus revealed to them along the lines of explaining the subject "God is a Trinity," there's no reason to believe, from the Scriptures, that Jesus necessarily went about it this way; though He might have offered clarification when we went through the Messianic texts that speak of His divinity (e.g. Ps 110) in Luke 24 as I previously mentioned. As I said before, the instances where that Jesus identified Himself as God yet distinct from the Father could have very well been where some, if not most, of the disciples first learned that, in the very least, God was not one in being and one in person. We aren't told exactly when each of the individual disciples finally grasped the teaching, nor do we really need to if the Gospels, as well as the other books of the NT, teach the doctrine. What are we told is that Jesus identified Himself as God (both in the flesh as well having existed as God prior to the Incarnation) yet distinct from the Father and from the Holy Spirit, that in the instances where He did so in front of a Jewish audience the Jews wanted to stone Him because He had claimed as such, and that none of His disciples ever hinted at thinking He was lying (or just plain crazy).
As for when Jesus revealed that "He was the second person of it [the Trinity]," I hope you do realize that the identification of Jesus as the second person of the Trinity is done so as a means of being consistent with the doxological "the Father, the Son, and the Holy Spirit." Though, I think I have also heard the term used to reference the role of the Son in God's decree to save His people.
You said: "And when do we see in the Scriptures that the disciples began teaching this?"
Are you talking about where in the Book of Acts is it recorded that they preached and/or taught on what the doctrine of the Trinity teaches or just anywhere in the NT post the Gospels?
Also, again, you must realize that if the disciples taught the divinity of the Father, the Son, and the Holy Spirit yet did so distinguishing between the three as distinct persons then the disciples, in turn, taught the doctrine of the Trinity given their monotheism. You speak as to say that if the disciples did not preach a sermon titled, "An Explanation of the Trinity," then they did not teach it.
Ryan,
ReplyDeleteI affirm every statement that the Scriptures make about the Father, about the Son, and about the Holy Spirit. Yet, if I don't use the words trinity, trinitarian, or triune then I'm told I'm not orthodox. My question is, if the apostles can be considered orthodox without using those terms, why can't I?
blogforthelordjesuscurrentevents,
ReplyDeleteYou said: "I affirm every statement that the Scriptures make about the Father, about the Son, and about the Holy Spirit. Yet, if I don't use the words trinity, trinitarian, or triune then I'm told I'm not orthodox. My question is, if the apostles can be considered orthodox without using those terms, why can't I?"
I don't believe anyone is saying you have to use those exact terms to be orthodox. What we are saying is that if you do not believe what those words represent, meaning what the doctrine of the Trinity teaches, then you are not orthodox. You're correct in saying that the Apostles did not use those exact terms. However, the Apostles did teach the doctrine those terms represent and, as such, to deny what the doctrine teaches makes you not only unorthodox but, to be blunt (and unpolitically correct), a heretic on the path of destruction (your universalism aside).
Ryan,
ReplyDeleteWe've probably carried the discussion on this post as far as we should as I think we've each made our respective positions clear by now.
By calling me a heretic you have at least done me the courtesy of being clear in your speech so I can thank you for that. However, as to whether that charge is valid, I appeal to the Lord to decide.
You may trust the words of church fathers if you wish. I will rely on the words of the Lord and His apostles.
blogforthelordjesuscurrentevents,
ReplyDeleteYou said: "We've probably carried the discussion on this post as far as we should as I think we've each made our respective positions clear by now."
I actually am still pretty much in the dark as to your exact belief on this topic. Do you have a link explaining what it is exactly you believe?
Given that you said "as to whether that charge is valid, I appeal to the Lord to decide," it seems pretty clear that you do deny what the doctrine of the Trinity teaches. However, I haven't, at least in this discussion, seen you lay out your alternative position.
You said: "You may trust the words of church fathers if you wish. I will rely on the words of the Lord and His apostles."
Of those who comment on this blog, I actually am probably one of the those least versed in the works of the Church Fathers. I know enough to make statements that I think it is rather clear they held to the doctrine currently being discussed, though.
I also have a feeling that you are not simply relying on the words of the Lord and His Apostles, just as every person who has denied what the doctrine of the Trinity teaches has not. However, since you have seemingly stated you are done with this discussion, I guess I will not be able to dig out what else it is that you're relying on.
Ryan,
ReplyDeleteI didn't feel that it was appropriate for you and I to continue a discussion on the Trinity on the Triablogue site since it's off-topic from the post.
However, I am happy to entertain as much dialogue as you'd like and I've made a place to do that if you'd like:
http://wp.me/p1eZz8-ah
Mike,
ReplyDeleteFair enough. I will continue this discussion with you over at your blog.