mcmahon@cs.rochester.edu (Brendan McMahon) (09/07/89)
First some background:
I am a practicing Catholic, confident that I am following the teachings of
Jesus to the best of my ability. My wife of 4+ years was raised with no
religious background, and is not baptized. It has always been my hope, and
is in my prayers that one day she may convert, but I have always felt that
it would be counter-productive to try to force my religion on her. We have
a very strong marrige, the only area of concern for me is the topic of this
posting.
About a year ago there was a knock on our door and lo and behold who was there?
A Jehovah's Witness. Slowly over the course of the year my wife has been
getting more and more into the bible. For this I should be, and am thankful.
She is currently metting with this person every other week. The trouble is
that JW's are very anti-Catholic. But what can I do. She says she just wants
to find out the real truth, and it can't hurt to investigate all sides from
all angles. So despite being deeply troubled over these mettings, I can
only allow them to continue.
This is where things currently stand:
She says she is ready to be baptized as soon as she finds out which Christian
church is the "true" church. She has eliminated the Catholic church mainly
because of the trinity doctrine (influenced mostly by the JW's "Should you
believe in the trinity" publication.) Thankfully, I have been able to show
the flaws in the JW's beliefs, so she isn't ready to become a JW. Thankfully
because I don't know if any family could survive such opposing religious
view points (although I know there have been Christian/Jewish marriges).
The main thing that she is struggling with is the Divinity of Jesus.
The JW's say that Jesus is not Divine, not God, not worth of worship, because hewas just a man on this earth and is just a spirit higher than the angles now.
Now for some questions:
o) Do not most Christian churches teach the divinity of Jesus? What
churches other than the JW's teach otherwise? Mail from another
reader of this news group explained the John 1:1 "..Word was God"
vs JW's "... Word was a god" controversy. What are some other
references that might point to Jesus being God?
o) How do other Christians who profess Jesus as "one in being with the
Father", account for apparent Biblical contradictions such as "the
Father is greater than I", "Why do you call me good, only the Father
is good", ... others indicating a separate Father. One book I read
said that theologians and students of Christology have contemplated
how much of Jesus's divinity was able to show through to his total
humanity. Indicating he did not know his exact nature, until his
resurrection. This might be supported by his asking his disciples
"who do you say that I am?", and asking that man "why do you call
me good only the Father is good?", at least he is not denying his
divinity, and after his resurrection he accepts Thomas's worship
"my lord and my God". ( I may have answered my own question, but
am interested in the opinion of others. )
o) Can some one recommend a book or better yet break down the different
Protestant religions and their main articles of belief. We have
no idea what the differences between a Baptist, Lutheran, ... are.
How does a person in my wife's position go about finding a Church that
best accomadates(sp?) her beliefs?
I am ready to suggest to her that she stop getting instructions from this
person because they (JW's) are obviously not Christ's true Church, and
suggest to her that we start attending different denomination's services
around town. (I would just attend an early mass beforehand.) Despite the
recent posting "Protestantism as the Church", I don't feel the differences
between Protestants and Catholics are nearly as sharp or conflicting as the
JW's. Anything I can do to steer her out of that approach will be a
great relief to me.
Any help appreciated!
--
Brendan McMahon ...!rochester!kodak!ektools!kadsma!mcmahonhedrick@geneva.rutgers.edu (09/08/89)
This is a response to some questions from
kodak!isctsse!mcmahon@cs.rochester.edu (Brendan McMahon). He is
looking for an alterative to the Jehovah's Witnesses for his wife. He
asked 3 specific questions, which I'm going to comment on.
There has recently been an extensive discussion in talk.religion.misc
on the question of the Trinity and Incarnation. However the volume
and complexity of that discussion was a bit much for someone in your
situation. So let me simply try to give a summary answer to your
questions and let others fill in details as seems appropriate.
1) Most "mainstream" Protestant churches teach the divinity of Christ.
In general Protestants differ radically from Catholics on issues
involving the nature of the Church and how authority in the earthly
Church is handled, as well as some aspects of the sacraments. On
issues such as the nature of God and Christ there is much less
difference. The definitive formulations on the Trinity and
Incarnation were in the Councils of Nicea and Chalcedon, respectively.
While Protestants don't give quite the same authority to councils that
Catholics do, most acknowledge Nicea and Chalcedon as true councils
and in general terms accept the results. The major exceptions are
churches that are sort of obviously out of the mainstream: e.g.
Unitarian, Quaker, JW, and LDS (Mormon). But Protestant denominations
such as Methodist, Presbyterian, Baptist, Lutheran and the more
evangelical/pentacostal churches all accept the Trinity and
Incarnation just as you are used to them in the Catholic Church. (Of
course as in the Catholic Church this doesn't mean that every
individual member or even minister holds orthodox views.)
2) The Incarnation and Trinity are both relatively complex doctrines.
They are attempting to do justice to a number of different aspects of
the NT evidence. Here are the major things said about Christ that
have led to these doctrines:
- Jesus prays to the Father, and tells us that the Father is
greater than he is (John 14:28).
- Christ is spoken of as having existed before the world. (Col
1:15ff, John 1:1ff, Heb 1:2ff)
- Christ is in one way or another identified with God.
The last one is the most complex. Nowhere that I know of is it said
baldly that Christ is God. What does appear are several things:
- Jesus forgives sins, which only God should be able to do
- The rather odd episode of John 18:6. They come to arrest Jesus.
He says "I am he" and they fall to the ground. An
interesting interpretation of this, which fits John's style
and theology, is that Jesus has said the Greek form of
the divine name ("Jehovah" is a mistransliteration of
a name that is probably closer to "Yahweh". Its literal
Hebrew meaning is something like "I am". See Ex 3:13-14.),
applying it to himself. Despite the hostility of the
arresting officers, God's glory is briefly present, forcing
them to their knees. Although indirect, this is the strongest
statement in the NT identifying Jesus with God.
- various statements in John such as "I and the Father are one"
- Christ's actions in saving us were God's. See Eph 4:32,
2 Cor 5:19, Col 1:19-20.
Here's a brief outline of how these lead to the Trinity and
Incarnation. Let's start with Christ's preexistence. What are we to
make of that? When it is said that Christ existed with God at the
beginning, some people concluded that there were two independent
eternal entities, Father and Son. This has two problems: (1) it looks
amazingly like two gods, something that Christians have never wanted
(2) it is probably too literal a reading of language that is
ultimately poetic. "In the beginning was the Word" is a Christianized
form of Jewish speculative ideas about the Torah, Wisdom, etc. At
places in Prov. (e.g. Prov 8:22-31) Wisdom is treated like a living
entity, who was present with God from the beginning. Later Jewish
speculation (probably under the influence of neo-Platonic ideas)
developed this even further. But ultimately, it is hard to believe
that any Jew really meant God's Law or his Wisdom to be a separate
creature. If you ask what was really present in the beginning, I
think we'd have to say that Wisdom was present in God's mind, not that
it was really a separate entity. Similarly, one suspects that the
Word that John says was present was God's word, and was ultimately
present in God's mind and his will. I don't think that in the prolog
to John, John had in mind a really separate entity.
The Trinity is the result of the Church dealing with folks (called
Arians) who took preexistence more literally, and believed that there
was actually a second preexistent entity alongside of God. In the
Trinity, the Church rejects this idea, and interprets the eternal Son
as being a mode of being of one God, not something separate. It seems
paradoxical to some, but the Trinity was originally intended as a way
of *preserving* the idea of one God. I am not entirely sure that the
exact metaphysical formulations used at Nicea are meaningful to all
Christians today. We may need to reformulate this doctrine, probably
by removing its cloak of neo-Platonism and returning to more Hebraic
concept of God. But I think we do want to preserve its major
accomplishment, which is to interpret the preexistence of Christ as
saying something about God, not as involving a second eternal entity.
(More below about what it actually says about God.)
Now let's look at the Incarnation. This doctrine is an attempt to
deal with the fact that Christ lived an earthly life in dependence on
God, but that he is also in some sense identified with God. The idea
is that God took to himself a human life in such a way that when we
saw Jesus, we really saw God. Yet it remained a human life. Thus in
Christ we have two things: God and a human being. Whenever we speak
of Christ, we must do justice to *both* of these things.
Again, it's useful to look at what this was rejecting. The ideas were
developed as a reaction to the concept that Christ was a supernatural
entity who appeared on earth with a human appearance, but was not
actually a normal human being. In effect, rather than maintaining
both Christ's humanity and his union with God, it posited an entity
sort of halfway between man and God. The problem with this is that
it's not clear what benefit such an entity has for us.
One basic principle of theology has been that in order to save us,
Christ must be both God and man. If he isn't God, he can't *save* us.
If he isn't man, he can't save *us*. Heb 2:14-18 makes it clear that
our salvation depends upon the fact that Christ is really human, not a
demigod with a human appearance. Yet Christians have always felt that
Christ's death on the cross must be considered to be God's
self-sacrifice. So the classical doctrine attempts to say both that
Christ is a normal human being, and that God somehow united himself to
Christ in such a way that Christ's actions were really God's, and in
him God was really present.
Again, it's not clear how much the neo-Platonic language of Chalcedon
really does for 20th Cent. Christians. I am very sympathetic with
people who would rather find a way to think of Christ that doesn't
involve figuring out what essenses and hypostases are. But the ideas
they come up with should be consistent with the original ones. They
must preserve the fact that Christ's death is God's self-sacrifice,
but also the fact that Christ is a normal human being, who lived a
life under the same limits as ours, in trusting dependence upon his
Father.
Note that Christians very commonly use language about Christ that is
in some sense misleading. Christ really involves two things: God and
man. Yet because Christ is only one person, things that normally
would be true about only God or man can be said to be true about the
other. E.g. properly speaking, God can't die. But because God has
taken this human life as his own, God can be said to have suffered
death.
I have no objection to people who find the traditional wording
inappropriate for the 20th Cent. I think reformulations may be called
for. However I'd like the reformulations to be 20th Cent. equivalents
of the orthodox view, not of one of the positions that the Church
rejected. Those who reject the Trinity quite commonly seem to hold
the equivalent of the Arian position. They think of Christ as a
second eternal entity. They normally think of his appearance on earth
as being something akin to wearing a mask, or putting on a human suit.
They do not normally think of their eternal Son uniting himself with a
true human life. This conflicts with the clear NT concept of Christ
as a man exactly like us. And because it is not really God but this
separate Son who comes down, it's also not clear that he has any power
to save us.
In the previous paragraph, I'm describing some views that appeared on
talk.religion.misc. I don't know the precise JW stand, so this
shouldn't necessarily be taken as an analysis of the JW views. You'll
have to figure out what they have been saying to your wife and see how
they compare with the orthodox position as outlined here. I have also
made no attempt to deal with the Mormons. Their ideas about God are
as far as I can tell like no other Christian or Christianity-derived
group. Although there are some superficial similarities between their
views and the Arian ones, I don't think they are really Arian. They
are sort of a case to themselves.
If you are seriously interested in these things, I recommend a book by
John (?) Baille, "God was in Christ". This is an attempt to recast
the Trinity and Incarnation in modern terms. As described above, the
Trinity almost looks like a way of "defusing" the NT's insistence on
Christ's preexistence, so as to protect monotheism. Rather than
saying that the preexistent Christ is a separate entity, it is
interpreted as saying something about God. But I haven't said what
precisely it says about God. Baille supplies that content.
Baille's view is hard to summarize briefly. Basically he says that
the Trinity is a consequence of the concept that God is love. If God
is really and truly love, he did not need the world in order to love.
So he must have had love even before there was anything outside
himself to love. This means that there must be a relationship within
God himself. Father and Son are seen as being, not separate entities,
but the two "ends" of the relationship of love which is present within
God. The Spirit holds the relationship together. This has
interesting consequences for the Christian life. God calls us to
loving obedience. At first, one would think that obedience is
something appropriate only to creatures. God himself would not have
had the experience. But because God had this relationship, he has
experienced the role of Son as well as the role of Father. Thus he is
not calling us to a role that is foreign to himself. Rather, he is
calling us to participate in a relationship that has always existed in
himself. Thus he is able through his grace to give us the obedience
that he demands.
This analysis is viewed by many modern theologians as being one of the
most insightful and innovative contributions ever made to Trinitarian
doctrine. The book is not written for casual reading. But it is
written to make sense to laymen. It includes a good detailed
explanation of where the traditional doctrines came from and what they
mean. But its meat is his attempt to recast the doctrines in terms
that have real content for Christian life.
(3) You ask about choosing a church. There are books that do what you
ask, but I don't know the titles. I hope someone else can suggest
one. I've looked through our local phone book in preparing the
following, to try to make sure I didn't miss any major groups.
However I have by no means mentioned every group. You shouldn't take
the following information as authoritative, as I don't know every
church equally well. Although a Catholic may find some of the
practices of some of the following somewhat of a jolt, I don't think
you'll find anything heretical in any of them (aside from their ideas
about what the Church is, and if you are into Catholic sacramentalism,
the lack of sacramental theology in many of them).
There are some theological differences between denominations such as
Lutheran and Baptist. However they are less than you might expect.
Many of the divisions among Protestant groups are simply due to
history. And they are differences in the way the church governs
itself or in the type of liturgy it uses. No one takes these
differences as having any ultimate significance. Theology is more
important to me than to many people. I am a Presbyterian because I
value the Reformed theological tradition, and I think its form of
church government is both effective in practice and in accord with the
NT. But most Protestants choose churches because they feel
comfortable there, by a combination of compatibility with the people,
respect for the pastor, etc. I'm not entirely comfortable with this
approach, since I happen to think that doctrine is important.
I would start by trying to determine what general parameters your wife
is interested in. The first dividing line is between what I'm going
to call "fundamentalist" and more liberal churches. This comes down
to whether you believe that you can apply the words of the Bible
directly to modern questions without further examination, or whether
you are willing to consider the possibility that the Bible writers
heard the Word of God through their own culture, and some adjustment
may be needed in applying the Bible to modern times. This shows up
with issues such as ordination of women.
If she wants to take the more literal view, then the largest
denomination is probably the Southern Baptists. Baptists demand adult
baptism. (If your wife isn't baptized, this won't be an issue for
her. She'll be baptized by any church she joins. But if you decided
you wanted to join, and you were baptized as a child, Baptists and
certain other denominations would insist on rebaptizing you. If that
upsets you, you may want to think about it. I think the "pentacostal"
churches also will insist on adult baptism. Some others listed in
this section probably do as well, but I'm not sure which.) To my way
of thinking this is a sign of a slight over-emphasis on the role of
our decision. I also find the "low church" views on the sacraments
slightly unsatisfying. But this is largely a partly a matter of
taste. I just prefer a more liturgical church. If I suddenly became
conservative, I'd tend to look at a group like the Orthodox
Presbyterian Church or Presbyterian Church in America, which are
smaller conservative branches of Presbyterianism. For someone who
wants more liturgy, Missouri Synod or Wisconsin Synod Lutheran are
probably worth looking at. These are all relatively "cerebral"
churches. Wesleyan Methodist is a smaller conservative branches of
Methodism. Methodism has emphasized "heart religion" and revivalism,
but not to the extent of the pentacostals. I think this distinctive
heritage is tending to blur, and there may now be little practical
distinction between Methodists and Presbyterians. I'm not as familiar
with the pentacostal churches. But there are plenty of them. These
are churches that have more emphasis on speaking in tongues, etc.
Churches with names involving "holiness" and "pentacostal" tend to be
in this direction. But there are a huge number of denominations, and
I have only started the list...
If she is willing to take a more flexible view of the Bible, then
there's another set of churches. Roughly the same set of choices
present themselves, but you're now dealing with slightly more
"liberal" representatives from the same basic families. From the
Baptist tradition, we have the American Baptists. Relatively "low
church", informal. Believe in adult baptism. Still relatively
conservative in their view of Scripture, but they're not purging their
seminaries of people who take more liberal views. In the Reformed
tradition you have churches like Presbyterian (USA), United Church of
Christ (the old Congregational), Congregational (those that didn't
join the UCC), and Reformed in America. Slightly more liturgy (though
this depends a lot on the church), slightly more central organization
(except for Congregational), infant baptism. Generally slightly more
liberal on social issues (probably UCC is the most) and Biblical
interpretation, but still tend to be "Biblical". Methodists are often
indistinguishable from these, though historically they were more
associated with "heart religion" (revivals, etc.), and recently some
of them have been involved more in the "social gospel". It depends
upon the local church. The more liturgical churches are American
Lutheran or Lutheran Church in America and Episcopal. Lutheran is
probably more theologically oriented and Episcopal more sacramentally
oriented.
I have not mentioned the groups that I consider outside "orthodox
Christianity," though among these groups I have a great admiration for
the Quakers. Everyone should experience a Quaker service at least
once. It will change your attitude towards silence and prayer. (I
attended a Quaker church for a year in college.)rock@sun.com (Bill Petro) (09/11/89)
kodak!isctsse!mcmahon@cs.rochester.edu (Brendan McMahon) writes: >Now for some questions: > > o) Do not most Christian churches teach the divinity of Jesus? > o) How do other Christians who profess Jesus as "one in being with the > Father", account for apparent Biblical contradictions such as "the > Father is greater than I", "Why do you call me good, only the Father > is good", ... others indicating a separate Father. ... It turns out that the question of the divinity of Jesus was decided more than a millenia ago during that period of church history called the era of the Theologians. Three Questions During the era of the Theologians these questions were asked: What was Jesus Christ before He came? What was Jesus Christ when He came? What did he do? What he was before he came deals with the trinity or Theology proper, what he was when he came deals with the merger of the God-ness and man-ness in one person or Christology. How do you get 100% of one and 100% of the other in one person - is this not just bad math? What he did deals with salvation or Soteriology. What was Jesus Christ before He came? The first question deals with Theology proper, the preincarnation question. It was a debate between a presbyter in Alexandria in the 4th century named Arius whose favorite phrase was, "There was a time when Christ was not". He believed that Christ was not always eternally existent but he began in time. Arius was opposed by the bishop of Alexandria named Athanasius. This was what was called the "Arian Controversy". It began about 318 AD and was debated at the the first post-biblical church in Nicea. This was actually the second church council. The first one was during biblical times and is recounted in Acts 15. The church decided on an orthodox statement of Jesus Christ - eternal. Arius taught that God was always eternal, but Christ and to a lesser degree creatures (us), had beginnings in time. "There was a time when Christ was not." Athanasius understood that if you believed that you had destroyed salvation. It took an eternal God to die the quality of death that procured salvation for us. A good man at the best could not do it, not even an elevated man. The Council of Nicea, just outside Constantinople, and called by the newly Christianized emperor Constantine himself, in 325 condemned Arianism. Unfortunately, following this condemnation, Arianism enjoyed a resurgence. Arius recanted his views. But after he recanted his views, he recanted his recantation. At the second great council in 381, among other things discussed, they condemned Arianism a second time. Athanasius was a good man, he was kicked around the empire five times. He's kicked out of his church, he comes back, he's kicked out again. Finally, his friends come to Athanasius, who alone is standing for this doctrine and they say to him "Athanasius, don't you know that the whole world is against you?" ...and it was, even the emperor. Athanasius said, "If the whole world is against me, then I am against the world." In fact, Arius at one time succeeded him as bishop of his church, and Athanasius prayed dearly that God would not let Arius take his pulpit. When Arius arrived at the church in Alexandria arrayed in purple on a palanquin as he rose up the steps of the church, he fell over dead. That was the end of that heretic. But that was not the end of that heresy and it survives today, in the theology of Mormon Church and the Jehovah's Witnesses. So, it was during the era of the Theologians that they solved forever, that before Jesus Christ came to this earth, he had to be what? God. They hammered it out as they poured over the Bible. What was Jesus Christ when He came? We know he was a man and we know he was God, but how do the two get together? You and I believe what the bishop of Rome wrote in 451 AD. Leo I of Rome said, "Our Lord Jesus Christ was 100% man, 100% God, in one person, without confusion, forever." And we believe that, but it took years to figure it out. Unfortunately the church figured it out by figuring out what it wasn't. So we had people in the church coming up with erroneous theories about the God-ness and the man-ness only to be declared heretics and be removed from the church. Apollinarius One of the first of these was Apollinarius. He said that if the human being has three parts - a body, soul and spirit, then when you come to Christ, he had a human body and a human spirit, but not a human soul. His human soul was removed and his diety filled it. So what he is denying was what? The true human-ness of Jesus Christ. He was not a human, he was a super human. If he is not human what have you destroyed? Salvation. Because a man died on that cross, like you and I, just like you and I, apart from sin. So he was condemned at the Council of Constantinople in 381. Nestorius Nestorius came along and thought he had the correct solution. Nestorianism basically taught that Jesus was Siamese twins. He was 100% man and 100% God, but not in one person. He was tangentally connected, but not really. He spoke in terms of a moral "conjunction" or a merging of wills rather than that of an essential "union". At the third great ecumenical (general) council held in Ephesus in 431, Nestorianism was condemned. The church might not have had it all figured out but they did know this: he was a real human being, and that he was one person not two. Eutyches Closer, but still a way to go. Eutyches was an aged monastic superior in Constantinople who taught that Jesus was of two natures, he was man and he was God, but when they came together in their collision course, they ceased to be either and became a third "something". He was a "tertiumquid", an eclecticism in which he lost his identity. He suggested that Christ's humanity was absorbed by his divinity like a drop of wine in the sea. But he solves the problem of the error of Nestorius by getting one person, but that person does not have 100%-ness in him, of either kind. This teaching was answered at the fourth great council, and perhaps the greatest council, at Chalcedon. It was at Chalcedon that Bishop Leo I of Rome addressed his letter, called the "Tome of Leo". Over four hundred Greek bishops attended, with representatives from Rome. This Leo was one of the earliest great administrators getting backing from the emperor and making extensive use of the text "You are Peter" from Matthew 16:19 as speaking of the pope himself. This same Leo later convinced Attila the Hun to turn back from Rome and managed to minimize the damage done to the city when it was captured by the Vandal hoards. The Tome of Leo "We all with one voice confess our Lord Jesus Christ one and the same Son, at once complete in Godhead and complete in manhood, truly God and truly man, consisting of a reasonable soul and body; of one substance with the Father as regards his Godhead, of one substance with us as regards his manhood, like us in all things, apart from sin;...to be acknowledged in two natures, without confusion, without change, without division, or without separation; the distinction of natures being in no way abolished because of the union, but rather the characteristic property of each nature being preserved, and coming together to form one person and one entity, not as if Christ were parted or divided into two persons..." This was decreed to be orthodoxy at Chalcedon in 451. The bishops of Rome are the most orthodox you are going to find. If you wanted a good statement on what the Bible teaches, you went to Rome to get it - for 600 years. This was one of the reasons for the primacy of Rome in the church. Everyone said, "Wow, this is what we've been trying to say all along, this is it." The church hammered out what he was before he came, then the church hammered out what he was when he came - and they did it in reverse process. They figured out first what he wasn't then they arrived at what he was. That's how we usually do it. We are more adroit at figuring out what is wrong than what is right. Because of Apollinarius the church agreed that he was 100% man. Because of Nestorius the church agreed that he was one person not two. Because of Eutyches the church agreed that the distinction of the natures remain distinct. Therefore, at Chalcedon, the Tome of Leo I said that "Jesus is 100% man, 100% God, in one person, without confusion, forever." He is today reigning in heaven, the God-man. And when he walked upon the earth he was the God-man. God cannot die, so in what sense did he die on the cross? The man died, and the diety permitted himself to have his spirit be dismissed. That's why he says, "No man can take my life, but I lay it down." How can you kill God? So Jesus died on the cross voluntarily, because he wanted to, no one took it. What did Jesus do? This debate rings through the church repeatedly, the question of "how do you get saved." Of course, the real highlight in the development of soteriology is the information in the New Testament, everything else is just a shadow. Augustine was the first to clarify and systemize the meaning of the New Testament. He did it more brilliantly than anyone else had done. The Protestant Reformation is essentially a regurgitation of Augustine. Martin Luther read his writings. The issues are: Does man have any innate ability to effect in any measure his standing before God? Is there any goodness in man that would cause God to look upon him with favor? Is man totally depraved? Can man do anything to save himself? Can I do anything to save myself? Can you? Augustine and Pelagius Pelagius was an errant teacher who traveled the empire until he was finally excommunicated. He taught that man could save himself by his own native ability without so much as the work of Christ. He was a tall, brilliant, muscular, handsome man, just exactly what you don't want a false teacher to be. It was said of him, "his morality was not so much the rich deep life of faith so much as it was the external legalism, the ascetic self-discipline and self righteousness of monkery." And that's what he was. In those days if you had an error to teach, all roads made their way to Rome. That's where you went to ply your trade. Every -ic, -ism, -asm, and -spasm could be heard there, like Hyde Park in London, or Sproul Plaza in Berkeley. He finally came to clash with Augustine. He had a godly mother, Saint Monnica, and a pagan father. He lived a rather lustful life. He came right out of the pits. He had an illegitimate son at the age of 19. He sought peace in literature, he became a follower of Manicheis An interesting story is told about Augustine. When he made it back to Africa he was met at the ship by one of his more favorite paramours. She was thinking, "Oh boy, Augustine is back, happy days are here again." She ran up to him and said, "Augustine", and he turned his face from her. She thought that was strange so she ran up to him again and said, "Augustine", and he turned away from her again. So finally, she ran after him and grabbed him and said, "Augustine, Augustine, it is I." And he turned to her and said, "It is not I, but Christ". So he emerged with a very deep sense of sin and when Pelagius came teaching his heresies, they clashed. Pelagius taught that what occurred in Genesis 3 was a myth, it never happened so the effects of that myth are also mythical. He denied the fall of man and the idea of original sin. Man can save himself and has no need for God's grace. Man sins by choice and he can choose to not sin. And it is when he chose not to he saved himself. Augustine taught that man cannot repent unless the grace of God woos him and wins him - as I won my wife. How? Somewhat against her will. But I appeared so loving to her that I caused her to change her mind. And when she changed her mind, I accepted her invitation. That is something like what God does. He appears so loving and so kind and so benevolent that we are caused to be willing. And when we are willing, he saves us. Augustine then taught that men fell from innocence in Adam, man is born in sin because he was born in Adam. Man is totally depraved, unable in any way to effect or influence his position before God. Salvation therefore can only be God's gift apart from any human contribution or lack of it. These are big statements. In the church however, you had these two positions, Augustinianism and Pelagianism. In the medieval period at the Council of Orange in 529, the church decided on a middle-of-the-road position. That is called "cooperationism" sometimes referred to as semi-Pelagianism, which is the foundation stone of the "Ex opere operato" faith of the Roman Church. What is the "Ex opere operato" faith of the Roman Church? It is the idea that grace comes to you by the performing of certain sacraments. There are seven of them, but two of them cancel each other out, marriage and celibacy, as it seems that you can't be in both of these states. As you perform the sacraments you accrue merit, and when you have acrrued enough merit you may get yourself out of Purgatory, that interim waiting state, into Heaven itself. So Heaven is both earned and given. It is not free grace, it is merited. So by the Roman system you merit the merit of Christ by your meritorius good works. This seems to me to be a bit strained and strange from what I read in the Bible. But that is where the church camped for 1000 years of darkness before the Reformation. The difference between Pelagius and the Council of Orange is one of degrees. Pelagius was blatant. He said man can do it alone. Orange said that man and the church and God cooperate. Augustine said that man can do nothing on his own. Augustine taught grace, Orange taught cooperative grace, Pelagius taught no grace at all. Augustine said that Jesus delivered salvation to us freely, Orange said that Jesus delivered salvation to us cooperatively. The difference between the Roman Catholic Church and the Protestant Church is one word. What is that word? The Roman Church believes in justification by faith. The Protestant Church believes in justification by faith "alone". All the blood shed during the Reformation was for that one word. Not justification by faith plus works, but naked faith. The Protestant Church has much in agreement with the Catholic Church. There are other areas of disagreement, of course - apostolic succession, the veneration of the saints, the role of tradition, etc., but at the very foundation we differ over that little word. Bill Petro {decwrl,hplabs,ucbvax}!sun!Eng!rock "UNIX for the sake of the kingdom of heaven" Matthew 19:12 [The dividing line between the semi-Augustian and semi-Pelagian positions is somewhat hard to place. However I would place the Council of Orange as semi-Augustinian. The Council of Orange has no place for the concept of merit independent of grace. Indeed most of its canons would fit in quite well with the Reformers. Any cooperation occurs only after we have received the grace of God to regenerate us. It is certainly possible that the medieval church moved beyond this position into semi-Pelagianism and possibly even Pelagianism, as you described. However the major doctrinal statements are more careful. The section on justification in Trent -- while not satisfactory to Lutherans or Calvinists -- is also careful to make it clear that we have no merit other than from Christ. It does defend the idea that Christians truly merit eternal life, however this merit comes only from living a redeemed life which is in itself a gift of God's grace. --clh]
davem@watmath.waterloo.edu (Dave Mielke) (09/11/89)
In article <Sep.7.04.37.15.1989.17812@athos.rutgers.edu> kodak!isctsse!mcmahon@cs.rochester.edu (Brendan McMahon) writes: >The main thing that she is struggling with is the Divinity of Jesus. >The JW's say that Jesus is not Divine, not God, not worth of worship, because hewas just a man on this earth and is just a spirit higher than the angles now. You have raised a number of questions that may be a bit difficult to deal with via postings, but I'll give it a try. You asked about the Scripture where Jesus asked why the rich young ruler called Him good. In Mark 10:17-18, for example, we read "And when he was gone forth into the way, there came one running, and kneeled to him, and asked him, Good Master, what shall I do that I may inherit eternal life? And Jesus said unto him, Why callest thou me good? {there is} none good but one, {that is}, God.". Note that Jesus did not say that He Himself was not good; He merely stated the fact that the only good one was God. This can in no way be taken to mean that Jesus was denying His diety. The man who came running to Him thought of Him as just some really great teacher. As we know from the next few verses he also fervently affirmed that he felt that he himself had led quite a good life morally. Jesus, knowing that the man did not recognize Him as God, answered him in a way that showed him that human efforts are not good enough. He effectively said that if we only think of Him as a man then we had better not apply the adjective "good" to Him because the only one to whom we may apply that adjective is God Himself. With this statement He was telling the man that he also ought not to consider himself to be good. You asked how to explain statements of Jesus implying that His Father was greater than He. In John 14:28, for example, we read "Ye have heard how I said unto you, I go away, and come {again} unto you. If ye loved me, ye would rejoice, because I said, I go unto the Father: for my Father is greater than I.". The Scripture which best explains this apparent contradiction is Philippians 2:6-8 which says "Who, being in the form of God, thought it not robbery to be equal with God: 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, he humbled himself, and became obedient unto death, even the death of the cross.". In order to live among us He became like us. John 17:5 tells us that He did this by emptying Himself of all of His glory. In this temporal state the Father, who was still in HIs full glory, was greater than Jesus. This state lasted only until His resurrection, and did not exist before His conception. Philippians 2:9-11 continues "Wherefore God also hath highly exalted him, and given him a name which is above every name: That at the name of Jesus every knee should bow, of {things} in heaven, and {things} in earth, and {things} under the earth; And {that} every tongue should confess that Jesus Christ {is} Lord, to the glory of God the Father.". You raised the issue of what exactly Jesus is right now. The Scriptures teach that, even now, in addition to being God, He is also still a man. 1 Timothy 2:5 says "For {there is} one God, and one mediator between God and men, the man Christ Jesus;". Now here are some proofs that Jesus is God. In Isaiah 42:8 God declares "I {am} the LORD: that {is} my name: and my glory will I not give to another, neither my praise to graven images.". In John 17:5 Jesus prays "And now, O Father, glorify thou me with thine own self with the glory which I had with thee before the world was.". If God will not give His glory to another, and if Jesus tells us that He not only had God's glory before but also expected to receive it again, then He must be God or the Scriptures will not harmonize. In Isaiah 43:11 God declares "I, {even} I, {am} the LORD; and beside me {there is} no saviour.". Speaking of Jesus, Acts 4:12 informs us "Neither is there salvation in any other: for there is none other name under heaven given among men, whereby we must be saved.". If God is the only saviour, and if Jesus is the only name under heaven by which we must be saved, then Jesus must be God or these Scriptures will not harmonize. Hebrews 1:8-12 says "But unto the Son {he saith}, Thy throne, O God, {is} for ever and ever: a sceptre of righteousness {is} the sceptre of thy kingdom. Thou hast loved righteousness, and hated iniquity; therefore God, {even} thy God, hath anointed thee with the oil of gladness above thy fellows. And, Thou, Lord, in the beginning hast laid the foundation of the earth; and the heavens are the works of thine hands: They shall perish; but thou remainest; and they all shall wax old as doth a garment; And as a vesture shalt thou fold them up, and they shall be changed: but thou art the same, and thy years shall not fail.". In this Scripture the Father calls His Son God twice and Lord once. Genesis 1:1 says "In the beginning God created the heaven and the earth.". Speaking of Jesus, Colossians 1:16 says "For by him were all things created, that are in heaven, and that are in earth, visible and invisible, whether {they be} thrones, or dominions, or principalities, or powers: all things were created by him, and for him:". If God created the heavens and the earth, and if Jesus created everything as well, then, again, He must be God. Note, too, that this latter Scripture tells us that Jesus created all thrones and power. If He were not God then who created God's throne and power? Speaking of Jesus, John 1:3 says "All things were made by him; and without him was not any thing made that was made.". We are not only told that Jesus made everything, but also that there is nothing that was made that He did not make. God is rather emphatically telling us that there is absolutely no such thing as something which was made which Jesus did not make. If Jesus were merely a created being then He would have to have been made. If this were true then He would have had to make Himself. This, of course, cannot be. Jesus must have existed forever in the passed. This is confirmed in Micah 5:2 where we read (concerning a prophesy of His birth) "But thou, Bethlehem Ephratah, {though} thou be little among the thousands of Judah, {yet} out of thee shall he come forth unto me {that is} to be ruler in Israel; whose goings forth {have been} from of old, from everlasting.". Colossians 2:9 says, of Christ, "For in him dwelleth all the fulness of the Godhead bodily.". Note that this Scripture does not merely say "the fulness"; it says "all the fulness". The word "all", here, does not leave anything left over. The absolute completeness of whatever the Godhead is dwells in Christ. Probably the best proof of the trinity can be found in 1 John 5:7 which says "For there are three that bear record in heaven, the Father, the Word, and the Holy Ghost: and these three are one.". There are those who claim that the phrase "are one" really means "are in agreement with one another". Note, however, that the Bible does not permit us to impose this misinterpretation. God, in His infinite wisdom, foreseeing that some would do this, immediately followed 1 John 5:7 with 1 John 5:8 which says "And there are three that bear witness in earth, the Spirit, and the water, and the blood: and these three agree in one.". God is clearly showing us that He will say "agree in one" if that is what He means, and that when He says "are one" He means exactly that. With this in mind, it might also be worth quoting Jesus in John 10:30 where He says "I and {my} Father are one.". Note that, if Jesus were not a man, then He would not be qualified to pay the price for the sins of man. Note also that were He not good He would have only paid the penalty for His own sins. Since God is the only one who is good, Jesus had to be God Himself. Your wife must understand that God is infinitely greater than we are. His frames of reference are spiritual whereas ours are physical. We may not use our inability to understand what He is and why He does what He does as an excuse to not believe what He tells us in His Word. If we could understand it then we would not be believing Him strictly by faith. Hebrews 11:1 tells us "Now faith is the substance of things hoped for, the evidence of things not seen.". Ephesians 2:8-9 tells us "For by grace are ye saved through faith; and that not of yourselves: {it is} the gift of God: Not of works, lest any man should boast.". Dave Mielke, 613-726-0014 856 Grenon Avenue Ottawa, Ontario, Canada K2B 6G3 [There is some uncertainty about the exact wording used by the "rich young ruler". In Mat 19:16ff, rather than calling Jesus good, he asked what good thing he needed to do. But whatever the exact wording, in all three accounts, it seems clear that the man was trying to find something he could do to merit salvation. Thus Jesus refused the question, pointing out that only God is truly good. All we can do is obey God's commands. But we cannot thereby hope to become "good". --clh]
jamesa@amadeus.wr.tek.com (James Akiyama) (09/11/89)
I thought I'd follow this up since it seems related to the question Brendan
ask me in a personal Email (I was the one who answered his question on John
1:1). Let me warn people that this response is long. I have tried to cover
most of the points made from the publication that Brendan referred to. Anyone
not interested should pass this by. It solely deals with the Jehovah Witness.
I should mention that I come from a Conservative Baptist background and I am
not particularly familiar with the Catholic doctrine. My views do not
necessarily reflect the views of the Conservative Baptist. I would recommend
that Mr. McMahon check each of the things I say against the Catholic church
before presenting it in a discussion to his wife. Since I believe that the
Catholic church is a Christian church, I think it would be best if his wife
attend the same church as himself. If she finds this church unacceptable, then
I would look at others.
My reason for answering this is because I have spent a great deal of time
researching the various Christian cults.
First, I'll briefly summarize the discussion on John 1:1. Basically, the
question has to do with the two references to God. In the first reference,
"the Word was with God", God in the greek is "Ton Theon". In the second
reference "the Word was God", God is "Theos".
Note that "Ton Theon" (or "Thon Theos") is a definite article while "Theos"
is not. The JW argue that since there is no definite article before the
second God, it could implies an indefinite article; which they translate "a
god".
Christian theologians argue that a definite predicate noun (e.g. "God") when
it precedes the verb (e.g. "was") never takes a definite article in Greek;
thus the definite article can be implied.
This is complicated since in Greek, there is no indefinite article. A literal
translation might read:
In the beginning was the Word, and the Word was with the God, and the
Word was God.
Why did John choose this way of saying this? Theologians claim that the
absence of the article serves to lay stress upon and give precision to the
character expressed in the noun ("theos").
All said, John 1:1 is probably not the best argument for the trinity doctrine.
With that said, I will present my points for Brendan to use. Note that all
references (in terms of pg. numbers) for the Trinity doctrine from the JW comes
from their publication "Should You Believe in the Trinity?", Copyright 1989,
Watch Tower Bible and Tract Society of Pennsylvania (which is the publication
Brendan referred to in his article).
John 5:18 For this reason the Jews tried all the harder to kill him; not
only was he breaking the Sabbath, but he was even calling God his own
Father, making himself equal with God (NIV).
The JW argue that this was simply the Jews argument, but not actually what
Jesus said. I think what one needs to see is that this is John's interpre-
tation (since he was the writer); the Apostle John himself must have felt
Jesus was making himself equal to the Father; otherwise he would have needed
to qualify this remark.
The JW argue that the Bible states God is one (pg. 12-13), not three in:
Deu 6:4 'Hear, O Israel, the Lord thy God is one God'.
Gal 3:20 A mediator, however, does not represent one party; but God is one.
1Co 8:4-6 So then, about eating food sacrificed to idols: We know that an
idol is nothing at all in the world and that there is no God but one. For
even if there are so-called gods, whether in heaven or on earth (as indeed
there are many "gods" and many "lords"), yet for us there is but one God,
the Father, from whom all things came and for whom we live; and there is
but one Lord, Jesus Christ, through whom all things came and through whom
we we live (NIV).
Note that none of these are in disagreement with the trinity which states one
God, three persons. In fact these seem to support the trinity. Since John 1:1
states the "Word was God" (even if He is "a god"); Deu 6:4 seems to indicate
that God is singular. Thus, Jesus and the Father must be "one God". Note that
1 Corinthians 8:4-6 mentions other "gods", but Scripture never commands us
to worship these "false gods".
The JW also state Jesus was a created being (they believe He is the first
angel) as stated in Col 1:15 (pg. 14-16):
Col 1:15 He is the image of the invisible God, the firstborn over all
creation (NIV).
Note that the word "firstborn" in Greek is "prototokos" which means "firstborn"
or "firstbegotten". It can also mean of superiority of position, or Firstborn
before creation. Note that reading on one find:
Col 1:16 For by him all things were created: things in heaven and on earth,
visible and invisible, whether thrones or powers or rulers or authorities;
all things were created by him and for him (NIV).
Colossians 1:16 seems to make clear that Christ created all things in heaven
and earth. How could Christ create Himself?
Genesis 2:4b states:
Gen 2:4b When the Lord God made the earth and the heavens-- (NIV)
This "Lord" is the Hebrew YHWH ("Yahweh" or "Jehovah"). Thus Colossians seems
to attribute the creation to Christ, while Genesis attributes it to Yahweh
(or Jehovah) God. This supports that Jesus is the same God as the Father.
Note that the JW will restate Col 1:16 as "through him God created". This
rendition, however, is not supported by the Greek manuscripts as the Greek
contains on one noun "him", without reference to "God" (United Bible Society
Greek New Testament, 3rd edition, corrected; which is based on the theory
by Westcott and Hort by which the JW adhere).
JW also argue about God being tempted (pg. 14-15). They ask, "Could God rebel
against himself? Of course not. They cite James 1:13 which says:
Jam 1:13 When tempted, no one should say, "God is tempting me." For God
cannot be tempted by evil, nor does he tempt anyone; (NIV)
Some theologians argue that "tempted" is better rendered "tested". This is
(in my mind) clearly wrong. Hebrews states:
Heb 4:15 For we do not have a high priest who cannot sympathize with our
weaknesses, but one who has been tempted in all things as we are, yet
without sin (NASB).
So I believe that it is clear that Christ was tempted. However, I believe
that Satan was appealing to the human existance of Christ, not the Spirit side.
Again, I believe that we cannot fully understand the humiliation of God turning
into man. I believe that the human side of Christ was tempted, but the Spirit
side was not. He could not have had any inward desire or inclination to sin,
for these themselves are sin (Mat 5:22,28).
JW continue this argument by asking "How could any part of an almighty
Godhead--Father, Son, or holy spirit--ever be lower than angels?" (quoting
Hebrews 2:9). Again, I think this is an area where they do not fully see the
sacrifice made by Christ. In creation, man is lower than the angels, and for
a short while, Christ took this lower place (He became man).
JW further argue (pg 17) that since 2Co 1:3a states:
"Praise be to the God and Father of our Lord Jesus Christ," (NIV)
that Jesus could not have a God (his Father) and at the same time be that God.
Again, they misinterpret the Trinity doctrine; Christ is submissive (in person)
to the Father, but is still one God.
JW also brings up Mark 10:18, which states:
Mar 10:18 "Why do you call me good?" Jesus answered. "No one is good--
except God alone." (NIV)
The JW then state that no one is "as good as God is", not even Jesus himself.
Note that the passage is not saying "as good" but that no one is "good" except
for God. Jesus is not denying His own goodness, but forcing the man to
recognize that only God (including Himself) is good. Jesus must be "good",
in the site of God, to act as the perfect sacrifice. This is evident in
Mark 1:11:
MAR 1:11 And a voice came from heaven: "You are my Son, whom I love; with
you I am well pleased."
How can the Father be pleased in that which is not "good"?
Again, I believe this passage is in support of the Trinity doctrine, not
against it.
So often, the JW try to bring God down to our level of understanding. They
constantly argue on the basis of the capacity to comprehend. This is a common
problem of those who try to accept things completely literally (literally not
being the same as inerrancy). We cannot comprehend God; the Bible states:
Rom 11:33 Oh, the depth of the riches both of the wisdom and knowledge of
God! How unsearchable are His judgments and unfathomable His ways! (NASB)
1Co 13:12 For now we see in a mirror dimly, but then face to face; now I
know in part, but then I shall know fully just as I also have been fully
known. (NASB)
I hope this information helps. Again this information is only points to
counter the JW publication; it does not include the wealth of other Scripture
which supports the Trinity doctrine. I should point out that the Bible never
directly states a trinitarian God. However, (as shown in some examples above)
it can be conclusively inferred by comparing several passages.
I should also point out that there are several major doctrinal differences
(besides the trinity) that the JW disagree with the major churches (e.g.
Catholics and Protestants). Some of them are:
1. Their disbelief of eternal torment for unbelievers (see REV 20:10-15).
2. Their belief that Christ has already returned for His 1000 year
rule (see MAT 24:27-30, MAR 13:22-31, LUK 21:25-27, ACT 1:9-11).
3. Their belief that Christ is an angel; the first created being (contrast
REV 1:8, REV 21:6, and REV 22:13).
4. That Christians should not submit to any authority (see ROM 13:1,
HEB 13:17, 1PE 2:13).
You might want to get a hold of a copy of "The Kingdom of the Cults" by Walter
R. Martin. It contains valuable information on the various Christian cults.
It will also give an account of the perjury associated with the Jehovah
Witnesses founder (basically lying under oath; this has to do with #4, above).
As far as churches you might attend; I should warn you that there is still a
lot of bitterness between the Protestant and Catholic churches (I think this
is unfortunate, but that view is probably not supported by my own church).
As far as Protestant churches go, there are three main "flavors", the
conservative, who believe that Scripture is inerrant (e.g. Conservative
Baptist, which is mine, among others), Charismatics, who believe in the
continued existence of speaking in tongues (e.g. the Foursquare), and the
liberal churches, who do not believe in inerrancy. You will probably find
the more liberal churches are more open to the Catholic churches. Best
wishes.
James E. Akiyama
jamesa@amadeus.LA.TEK.COM
UUCP: ....!uunet!tektronix!amadeus.LA.TEK.COM!jamesa
ARPA: @RELAY.CS.NET:jamesa%amadeus.LA.TEK.COMSMITHJ@mps.ohio-state.edu (09/11/89)
In article <Sep.7.04.37.15.1989.17812@athos.rutgers.edu>, kodak!isctsse!mcmahon@cs.rochester.edu (Brendan McMahon) writes: > About a year ago there was a knock on our door and lo and behold who was there? > A Jehovah's Witness. Slowly over the course of the year my wife has been > getting more and more into the bible. For this I should be, and am thankful. > She is currently metting with this person every other week. The trouble is > that JW's are very anti-Catholic. But what can I do. She says she just wants > to find out the real truth, and it can't hurt to investigate all sides from > all angles. So despite being deeply troubled over these mettings, I can > only allow them to continue. Ask her if you can attend the meetings. My wife is a Methodist and we alternate between going to her church and mine. (Granted that the MC is not as different as the JW.) The main thing here is that you take an *active* role in her faith. When you go ***don't*** be hostile no matter how much slack they try to give the Church. Ask questions if compelled but do so in a humble and knowlegde-seeking manner. If for some reason she or the JW object to your attendence than I suggest you have a serious problem. As anti-catholic as they are they may be trying to brainwash her against the RC religion by spouting the old Mary-worshiper rhetoric. > This is where things currently stand: > She says she is ready to be baptized as soon as she finds out which Christian > church is the "true" church. She has eliminated the Catholic church mainly > because of the trinity doctrine (influenced mostly by the JW's "Should you > believe in the trinity" publication.) Thankfully, I have been able to show > the flaws in the JW's beliefs, so she isn't ready to become a JW. Thankfully > because I don't know if any family could survive such opposing religious > view points (although I know there have been Christian/Jewish marriges). > The main thing that she is struggling with is the Divinity of Jesus. > The JW's say that Jesus is not Divine, not God, not worth of worship, > because he was just a man on this earth and is just a spirit higher than the > angles now. If you are like me (also an RC) you know less about your religion than you should. I was faced with this problem when my wife started asking questions such as why do you cross youserlf, etc. It's important that you can answer these questions when your wife asks them rather than having her get them from her JW friend. I won't mince words: some such faiths resort to outright lies in an effort to lure people away from more traditional christian religions. Talk to your priest and see if your church has any eductional sessions on your faith. He could also recommend a book on the subject I'm sure. Let your wife know that you don't think it's fair that she isn't giving equal time to her husbands religion when she is taking advice from a stranger. > I am ready to suggest to her that she stop getting instructions from this > person because they (JW's) are obviously not Christ's true Church, and > suggest to her that we start attending different denomination's services > around town. (I would just attend an early mass beforehand.) Despite the > recent posting "Protestantism as the Church", I don't feel the differences > between Protestants and Catholics are nearly as sharp or conflicting as the > JW's. Anything I can do to steer her out of that approach will be a > great relief to me. I am terribly upset by the fact that all these religions who profess a faith in the Trinity and follow the teachings of the NT can't get their act together and see that it's about time they unified againt the spread of cult religions. While the Catholics and Methodists are busy arguing over whether to take Communion weekly or yearly the Jehovas and Mormons are taking people to hell in a mighty large handbasket. -- They have one big advantage over us: *they* know where they're going. Has your family tried 'em, Powdermilk? /* Jeffery G. Smith, BS-RHIT (AKA Doc. Insomnia, WMHD-FM) * * The Ohio State University, Graduate Physics Program * * 3193 Smith Lab, Columbus, OH 43210 (614) 292-5321 * * smithj@ohstpy.mps.ohio-state.edu */ [This comes very near to being ad hominem attack. I we would very wary of accusing a faith as a whole of lying. There are lots of people who get overenthusiastic, and say things they probably shouldn't. This fault occurs among orthodox as well. It is probably best that we should simply see whether we find their position true or false, and not get diverted by calling each other liars. This is particularly true if you are intending to lump the Mormons in the same group. I don't know any JW's, so I can't comment personally. But the Mormons with which I have dealt have been in general intellecturally honest people. --clh]
murphy@mips.com (Mike Murphy) (09/11/89)
>Brendan McMahon writes: > o) Do not most Christian churches teach the divinity of Jesus? What > churches other than the JW's teach otherwise? All Christian churches teach the divinity of Jesus, in fact this is one of the dividing lines between Christian and pseudo-Christian (in my opinion). In some denominations you may find some liberal pastors who question Jesus' divinity despite the denomination's "official" position. > What are some other references that might point to Jesus being God? John is the gospel with the most references to this topic, e.g. 5:17-26, 10:24-30, 14:8-11, to name a few. This all gets into the trinity concept and definitions of "Son of God", which you ask about next. > o) How do other Christians who profess Jesus as "one in being with the > Father", account for apparent Biblical contradictions such as "the > Father is greater than I", "Why do you call me good, only the Father > is good", ... others indicating a separate Father. If you accept the trinity then these are not really contradictions, as Jesus is both distinct from the Father and one with the Father (God as both one and three). The trinity is a bit of a paradox, and many pseudo-Christian churches like Jehovah Witnesses and Mormons disbelieve in it, either by having only one God or many separate Gods. You say that your wife rejects the Catholic church because they believe in the trinity, well, all Protestant denominations do too, so your wife needs to come to grips with this doctrine. I'm not sure about the history of the trinity, but I suspect it came about as an attempt to reconcile these seeming contradictions in Scripture (this space reserved for moderator's knowledgeable comments). The way I personally understand the trinity is to think about how a family/relational unit can act as one, e.g. "and the two become one" (Gen 2:24). Btw, the Mark 10:18 passage ("Why do you call me good") is considered by some commentators to be a rhetorical question, i.e. Jesus was testing whether the man would recognize that Jesus is like the Father and is indeed good. > How does a person in my wife's position go about finding a Church that > best accomadates(sp?) her beliefs? I think the best way is to simply visit the different churches in your area. Most of the Protestant churches are indeed close in doctrine, and I find that there is much variance in the quality of the local congregation from location to location, e.g. not all Presbyterian churches are the same. There is also the question of worship style, which varies greatly from church to church, ranging from "high-church" (formal liturgies, e.g. Catholic, Episcopalian) to "low-church" (informal preaching and hymns, e.g. Baptist), with Lutherans and Presbyterians in the middle, and the charismatic movement affecting the style across all denominations (e.g. is it okay to raise your hands will praising God?). There are a lot of different denominations, and explaining all of them would require a long posting (perhaps the moderator could do this sometime). And there are also independent non-denominational churches that can be good. So use your yellow pages, and also ask around for recommendations (e.g. your Catholic priest will probably know some information about the other churches in your area). I agree that you should try to keep your wife away from the JW's, and I pray that the two of you will find a good church and grow in your faiths. -- -- Mike Murphy -- UUCP: sun!decwrl!mips!murphy -- AT&T: (408) 991-0438
smith_w@apollo.hp.com (Walter Smith) (09/13/89)
In article <Sep.11.02.28.51.1989.5711@athos.rutgers.edu> jamesa@amadeus.wr.tek.com (James Akiyama) writes: >Genesis 2:4b states: > > Gen 2:4b When the Lord God made the earth and the heavens-- (NIV) > >This "Lord" is the Hebrew YHWH ("Yahweh" or "Jehovah"). Thus Colossians seems >to attribute the creation to Christ, while Genesis attributes it to Yahweh >(or Jehovah) God. This supports that Jesus is the same God as the Father. I also did research into the tract James is examining here. Mine was directed at the section called 'What the ante-nicene fathers taught". The JW's claim Tertullian, Justin Martyr, Iraneaus, etc., were anti-trinity. I went to the library and read some of their works, like Tertullian on the soul, Dialog with Trypho (justin Martyr), etc. What I found was that these people said things quite different from what the JW imply. This did not suprise me. What did, was that the early christian writers I read all believed that Jesus Christ was the same God who spoke to Moses & the Old Testament prophets; that Jesus was indeed YHWH (giving Moses the 10 commandents, etc.) of the OT. I had heard people say that they believed Jesus was mentioned in certain parts of the OT, but I was not aware that the view of the promenant early writers was that Jesus was the YHWH of the OT. If Jesus Christ really is the same YHWH who spoke to the prophets, then the trinity (or at least the deity of Christ) seems naturally to follow. Walter [This is partly a matter of terminology. It took several centuries to develop the philosophical concepts needed to say what the Church felt should be said. Thus you should not expect Justin Martyr to say the same words as the Nicene Creed. However one can see recognizably trinitarian thought in all of these people. In fact, according to my information Tertullian was the first person actually to use the term trinitas. You'll get an opportunity to judge for yourself, since a later posting includes some quotations from Justin and Tertullian. --clh]
jking@apollo.hp.com (John King) (09/13/89)
Let me preface my statements by pointing out that about every six months on the net their seems to be a posting by some distraught husband who is concerned about his wife being "brainwashed" and "lied to" by JWs or Mormons. We then get an avalanche of sympathetic replies from various "experts" who are primarily using anti-JW sources to support their position. Let me respond to some of those comments: >All said, John 1:1 is probably not the best argument for the trinity doctrine. Thank you. I have discussed the Greek many times on the net. The bottom line is that you can neither prove nor disprove the trinity from John 1:1. > John 5:18 For this reason the Jews tried all the harder to kill him; not > only was he breaking the Sabbath, but he was even calling God his own > Father, making himself equal with God (NIV). >The JW argue that this was simply the Jews argument, but not actually what >Jesus said. I think what one needs to see is that this is John's interpre- >tation (since he was the writer); the Apostle John himself must have felt >Jesus was making himself equal to the Father; otherwise he would have needed >to qualify this remark. Yes, and in the very next verse(19) Jesus himself clarifies: " ....most truely I say to you, THE SON CANNOT DO A SINGLE THING ONE HIS OWN INITIATIVE..." Doesn't sound very trinitarian to me. > 1Co 8:4-6 So then, about eating food sacrificed to idols: We know that an > idol is nothing at all in the world and that there is no God but one. For > even if there are so-called gods, whether in heaven or on earth (as indeed > there are many "gods" and many "lords"), yet for us there is but one God, > the Father, from whom all things came and for whom we live; and there is > but one Lord, Jesus Christ, through whom all things came and through whom > we we live (NIV). Question: In the above verse, who does Paul say God is? Who does Paul say the Lord is? We see this distinction in many other places. For example, At Rev 14:4, we can see God and the Lamb(Jesus) are clearly two seperate entities. No it DOESN'T say "the Father and the Lamb". By distinguishing God from the Lamb, we can conclude that the Lamb is not God. >The JW also state Jesus was a created being (they believe He is the first >angel) as stated in Col 1:15 (pg. 14-16): > Col 1:15 He is the image of the invisible God, the firstborn over all > creation (NIV). >Note that the word "firstborn" in Greek is "prototokos" which means "firstborn" >or "firstbegotten". It can also mean of superiority of position, or Firstborn >before creation. Note that reading on one find: Sure it is possible that Paul really meant "pre-eminent" not "firstborn" but one must use a substantial amount of Kentuky windage to force that interpretation. If Paul really meant what you said, why didn't he use the word "proteuon" instead of "prototokos"? (also see Rev 3:14) > Col 1:16 For by him all things were created: things in heaven and on earth, > visible and invisible, whether thrones or powers or rulers or authorities; > all things were created by him and for him (NIV). >Colossians 1:16 seems to make clear that Christ created all things in heaven >and earth. How could Christ create Himself? Jesus is the "only-begotten" son of God. He was the first, and only son of God created directly by God. Everything else was created through Jesus (Col 1:16; Heb 1:1,2; Gen 1:26; Prov 8:22-31). >JW also argue about God being tempted (pg. 14-15). They ask, "Could God rebel >against himself? Of course not. They cite James 1:13 which says: > Heb 4:15 For we do not have a high priest who cannot sympathize with our > weaknesses, but one who has been tempted in all things as we are, yet > without sin (NASB). >So I believe that it is clear that Christ was tempted. However, I believe >that Satan was appealing to the human existance of Christ, not the Spirit side. >Again, I believe that we cannot fully understand the humiliation of God turning >into man. I believe that the human side of Christ was tempted, but the Spirit >side was not. He could not have had any inward desire or inclination to sin, >for these themselves are sin (Mat 5:22,28). Agreed. Jesus did not have an "inclination to sin". He was created perfect. So wasn't Adam, but he chose to disobey God. Satan was no dummy. He would not bothered to tempt Jesus if he didn't think he had some chance of success. >JW further argue (pg 17) that since 2Co 1:3a states: > "Praise be to the God and Father of our Lord Jesus Christ," (NIV) >that Jesus could not have a God (his Father) and at the same time be that God. >Again, they misinterpret the Trinity doctrine; Christ is submissive (in person) >to the Father, but is still one God. As a former Trinitarian, I'm sure my grasp of the doctrine is at least as good as yours. The foundation of the doctrine is that Jesus is co-equal in authority and power. That is not biblical (1 Cor 11:3) >So often, the JW try to bring God down to our level of understanding. They >constantly argue on the basis of the capacity to comprehend. This is a common >problem of those who try to accept things completely literally (literally not >being the same as inerrancy). We cannot comprehend God; the Bible states: > Rom 11:33 Oh, the depth of the riches both of the wisdom and knowledge of > God! How unsearchable are His judgments and unfathomable His ways! (NASB) > 1Co 13:12 For now we see in a mirror dimly, but then face to face; now I > know in part, but then I shall know fully just as I also have been fully > known. (NASB) May I suggest you make a better effort to comprehend him. At 2 Thes 1:8 Paul points out that those who do not know God are in deep do-do (also John 17:3). >Ask her if you can attend the meetings. My wife is a Methodist and we >alternate between going to her church and mine. (Granted that the MC is not >as different as the JW.) The main thing here is that you take an *active* >role in her faith. When you go ***don't*** be hostile no matter how much >slack they try to give the Church. Ask questions if compelled but do so in >a humble and knowlegde-seeking manner. This is a great idea. >If for some reason she or the JW object to your attendence than I suggest you >have a serious problem. There will be no objection, only encouragement to come again. > As anti-catholic as they are they may be trying to >brainwash her against the RC religion by spouting the old Mary-worshiper >rhetoric. Brainwash?! You speak of this man's wife, who you don't even know, like she is an unthinking child without a reasoning mind of her own! >some such faiths resort to outright >lies in an effort to lure people away from more traditional christian >religions. As a former Catholic, I am not going to lower this conversation into Catholic bashing on a public net. It would be nice if you could reciprocate. Jack [I've had a hard time knowing where to draw the line in this discussion. I have no problem with people giving arguments for the Trinitarian position. However I'd like to see X-bashing left out of the discussion, for all X. Whatever your experience with JW's, this discussion group has a whole range of Christians, including "orthodox", JW's, Mormons, etc. There is no way we can function without a bit of mutual respect. In retrospect I think I should have been more aggressive in filtering. I thank Jack for not reciprocating. As I indicated in a previous message, the NT says a number of different things, which appear at first glance to be mutually contradictory. The simple statement Jesus == God, with no other explanation, would certainly fail to deal with the passages cited here. However the orthodox doctrine is a bit more complex than that. Perhaps too complex... I'd rather not proceed with the sort of detailed passage by passage interpretation we see here (and in other postings), until I have an overall picture of your views. In particular, I'd be interested in how you deal with the whole range of passages, as I listed them in a previous message: - Jesus prays to the Father, and tells us that the Father is greater than he is (John 14:28). - Christ is spoken of as having existed before the world. (Col 1:15ff, John 1:1ff, Heb 1:2ff) - Christ is in one way or another identified with God: - Jesus forgives sins, which only God should be able to do - The rather odd episode of John 18:6, where Jesus seems to apply the name YHWH to himself, and everyone falls to the ground. - various statements in John such as "I and the Father are one" - Christ's actions in saving us were God's. See Eph 4:32, 2 Cor 5:19, Col 1:19-20. I do not think these issues are going to be settled on the basis of our understanding of specific passages, such as Jn 1:1 -- though of course discussion of those passages is relevant -- but by a judgement of how successful various positions are at dealing with the full range of Biblical evidence. This is not meant to be an attack, but a request for information. I do not think I've gotten a reasonable feeling for the JW position from the attacks that have been posted so far. --clh]
jeffjs@ihlpb.att.com (Jeffrey Jay Sargent) (09/13/89)
A couple of small thoughts inspired by Dave Mielke's article -- We could use a note on this first point from Michael Siemon or someone else similarly versed in textual criticism, but according to the footnote in the NIV, I John 5:7 appears in "late manuscripts of the Vulgate", i.e., it stands a good chance of being a late interpolation, not part of the original text. This makes it a bit shaky of a foundation for proving the oneness of the Trinity. On a more encouraging note, the way I like to think of Jesus's "Why do you call Me good? No one is good -- except God alone" is that He was, with a wise gleam in His eye, saying to the rich young ruler, "Think about what you're saying; do you realize what you're calling Me by addressing Me as 'good'?" It looks to me like an instance of Jesus's Socratic humor. Which brings up an interesting suggestion: Those who tend to think of Jesus as invariably utterly solemn and serious ought to read the Gospels with an eye to seeing all His humorous (though certainly pungent) utterances -- like His hyperbole in the Sermon on the Mount, to make a brief answer to another article that I hope I can get back to later at greater length. Back to the "rich young ruler" story for a moment: One time not too long ago when I read that (in the Mark version I think), I remember being startled by the sentence "The disciples were amazed at his words" -- i.e., at His statement that it is hard for the rich to enter the kingdom of God. I guess this comes from being an affluent American Christian, since much (but by no means all) of American Christianity seems to either ignore the issue of riches or turn it on its head by figuring that being a rich -- or shall we say, financially blessed -- Christian necessarily means that you're in good with God! How many times had I blithely read over that passage and that statement of Christ's before, noddingly accepting it, ignoring its tremendous punch -- which was blatantly obvious, indeed shocking, to the disciples? -- -- Jeff Sargent att!ihlpb!jeffjs (UUCP), jeffjs@ihlpb.att.com (Internet) AT&T Bell Laboratories, IH 5A-433, Naperville, IL (312) 979-5284 When you have eliminated the improbable, then whatever remains, however impossible, must be the truth. [I'm not sure what question you are asking. You seem to be asking whether I John 5:7 as a whole is a later addition. The NIV footnote may be misleading. It says "late manuscripts of the Vulgate 'testify in heaven: the Father ...' ". They don't mean that the verse appears only in late manuscripts of the Vulgate. What appears in those manuscripts is an alternative version of vs 7 and 8, which they proceed to give you in the footnote. The version of vs. 7 and 8 that NIV gives as the primary text is present in the major uncials, many of the Church Fathers, early translations into various languages, etc. The UBS Greek (2nd edition), which adopts the same text as the main NIV reading, classifies this text as A, meaning virtually certain. The alternatives, such as the one that NIV quotes in its footnote, appear to be expansions on the original. There is no indication in the UBS apparatus that any document omits the passage completely. In case people have other translations, here is the text as agreed on by the UBS Greek, RSV, NIV, TEV, Jerusalem Bible, and New American Bible (in the TEV translation): "There are three witnesses, the Spirit, the water, and the blood; and all three agree." (I John 5:7-8) It appears from Dave Mielke's quotation that he is using a translation based on those late manuscripts of the Vulgate that the NIV footnote is talking about. --clh]
nlt@romeo.cs.duke.edu (N. L. Tinkham) (09/15/89)
I have a minor factual correction to an otherwise informative article. Bill Petro writes: > What is the "Ex opere operato" faith of the Roman Church? It > is the idea that grace comes to you by the performing of certain > sacraments. There are seven of them, but two of them cancel each other > out, marriage and celibacy, as it seems that you can't be in both of > these states. While the state of celibacy may be sacramental in a more general sense of the word, it is not among the "official" seven sacraments, which are: baptism, the eucharist, reconciliation of a penitent, marriage, confirmation, ordination, and extreme unction (or anointing of the sick, depending on whether it is practiced for the dying only or for non-terminal sickness). Most Protestant denominations, of course, either classify only the first two as sacraments or reject the concept of "sacrament" altogether. (As I write, I am remembering that many denominations which consider baptism and the eucharist to be sacraments do perform marriages and ordinations but do not consider them sacramental. This seems odd to me. Since we have some Real Live Protestant readers :-), perhaps someone can comment helpfully. Is it merely that since the "lesser sacraments" were not ordained by Jesus himself, we do not know whether they convey grace, or is it, more strongly, a statement that they do not in fact have a sacramental quality to them?) I leave debate on the relative roles of grace, faith, and the sacraments in salvation to those with more time and stamina than I. My standard objection is that a sacramental system seems to me no more a departure from salvation by grace alone than is a system of salvation by grace plus acceptance of Jesus as one's "personal Lord and Savior". (Uh-oh, that may get me into a debate anyway... :-) ) ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- "For Christ plays in ten thousand places, Nancy Tinkham Lovely in limbs, and lovely in eyes not his nlt@lear.cs.duke.edu To the Father through the features of men's faces." rutgers!mcnc!duke!nlt [You ask for a Real Protestant answer. I guess as a Presbyterian elder I qualify as a Real Protestant. I'm going to give you something close to Calvin's answer. I think it is typical of the "high church" Protestant view. Of course there is no one Protestant answer. The low church tradition tends not to use the term sacrament, or to use it without all of the implications that it has for other traditions. Sacraments require two things: Christ must have instituted them specifically, and they must be sacramental. By sacramental I mean that they are actions that points beyond themselves, being an acted out form of the Word. This will become clearer below. Christ did not establish ordination. He is considered to have endorsed marriage (e.g. at Cana). However he did not command the Church to celebrate it as a sacrament. Nor is it one. The specific actions undertaken in baptism and communion have no intrinsic significance. From a visible point of view, it's just putting a bit of water on someone, or eating a very small amount of food. The significance appears only when you see them as forms in which God's promises are made visible. But marriage does not have this character of being simply a visible sign of a spiritual reality. Marriage has an intrinsic significance. It is what it is. Even pagans marry. It's true that marriage can be taken as symbolic of the relationship between Christ and the church. But the Bible uses lots of metaphors. The kingdom of heaven is like a mustard seed (Mat. 13:31). Is eating mustard to be a sacrament? The Lord will feed his flock like a shepherd. (Isa 40:10) Is herding sheep a sacrament? [Calvin lists lots of these examples.] Calvin acknowledges that there is a wider sense of the term sacramental. One can see many things in life as in some sense sacramental. This is a deep and valuable insight. He does not object to the concept of life as a continuing sacrament. However when the term is used as a technical one to refer to specific institutions, he reserves it for the two actions specifically instituted as sacraments by Christ. Frankly I think some of this was in a sense a tactical decision. As such some of the motivations may no longer apply. The Reformers believed that there were great abuses of all of the sacraments. Baptism and communion had to be purified. They had been directly instituted by Christ. However the simplest way to get marriage out from under canon law was simply to deny that it was a sacrament, and give it back to secular judges. Similarly, denying ordination the status of sacrament was a way of attacking what they saw as overblown claims for authority by priests and bishops. I am certainly more comfortable with just the two sacraments. But I can also see ways in which one could view marriage as a sacrament. And as long as it was not coupled with any views of marriage that were objectionable for other reasons, I find it hard to find much enthusiasm for fighting on the issue. Indeed I believe Luther said much the same. --clh]
davem@watmath.waterloo.edu (Dave Mielke) (09/15/89)
In article <Sep.13.06.22.28.1989.14271@athos.rutgers.edu> jeffjs@ihlpb.att.com (Jeffrey Jay Sargent) writes: (actually our moderator appended): > ... It appears >from Dave Mielke's quotation that he is using a translation based on >those late manuscripts of the Vulgate that the NIV footnote is talking >about. --clh] For the record (I probably should have said so earlier) all my quotations come from the (old) King James translation. It is a translation which I have come to trust to a very high degree, even though it contains a few small errors, and even though the English used in it is of a much older variety than is in common use today. It is the one which is the closest to being a word for word translation from the original, and we must remember that even the original text in its original languages neither was nor is easy to understand. Each verse in the Bible, in addition to giving us accurate historical information, and in addition to teaching us great moral truths, and in addition to giving us God's commandments, also gives us at least one, and often many, spiritual truths. God has insured that the phrases as they appear in the original text, say precisely what He wants them to say. Any attempt to rephrase these verses to make the meanings that the translator can see easier to understand is done at the risk of obscuring, if not entirely loosing, those meanings which God has hidden and not yet revealed to the translators. We would do far better if we placed our trust in the teaching power of The Holy Spirit, rather than in the fallable wisdom of a human translator, when it comes to the interpretation of the Scriptures and the accompanying revelation of divinely inspired truth. Any attempt to clarify the perceived meaning of a verse by changing its wording all around is done at the risk of making that verse less effective, and perhaps even causing it to teach a lie. The King James translation appears to be far less guilty of this sin than others. In John 14:26 Jesus tells us "But the Comforter, {which is} the Holy Ghost, whom the Father will send in my name, he shall teach you all things, and bring all things to your remembrance, whatsoever I have said unto you.". Proverbs 3:5 says "Trust in the LORD with all thine heart; and lean not unto thine own understanding.". Dave Mielke, 613-726-0014 856 Grenon Avenue Ottawa, Ontario, Canada K2B 6G3
ilw%chem@ucsd.edu (Ivy Blumberg) (09/18/89)
Although you may be right about the KJV being more accurate, try getting those who are just beginning to read the Bible to get excited about wading through all the thees, thous and shalts. I think we need translations that people can relate to and understand. I think the KJV loses the impact it can have on people's heart/mind by being difficult/tedious in it's presentation. My vote for general reading of the Bible is the NIV. If I'm worried about the meaning of a word, I look at the Greek word itself. [I agree with your preference for the NIV, however you should be aware that the NIV comes from the "liberal" end of the evangelical tradition. It seems to use modern textual criticism, and its translation is somewhat freer than the King James/Revised/RSV tradition, though certainly not as free as something like TEV (Good News Bible) or New English Bible. Those who prefer the KJV for ideological reasons (either because they do not accept the results of recent texual criticism or because they want a literal translation) may not find NIV acceptable. --clh]
jking@apollo.hp.com (John King) (09/18/89)
Our moderator offers some interesting questions: > - Christ is in one way or another identified with God: > - Jesus forgives sins, which only God should be able to do Men also had the power to forgive sins. At John 20:23, Jesus is addressing his disciples saying, " If you forgive the sins of any person, they are forgiven..." > - The rather odd episode of John 18:6, where Jesus seems to > apply the name YHWH to himself, and everyone falls to the > ground. Do they fall to the ground because they think he is God, or because he is the Messiah? I guess the conclusion the trinitarians attempt to force is that he was saying he was God because he says "I AM". They are relating it back to Ex 3:14 were many bibles translate the Hebrew "Ehyeh Asher Ehyeh" as "I AM who I AM". This is a weak arguement to start with. But it becomes ludicrous since in Hebrew there is no present tense of the verb "to be". The only proper way of expressing it then is I WILL BE WHO I WILL BE. In short, what God says will happen, will happen. In the very next verse (15) he then tells Moses his name (YHWH) for the first time. Jack [I refer you to the appendix on "Ego Eimi" in the Anchor Bible commentary on John, on which these comments are based. As I'm sure you know, the exact translation of Ex 3:14 is disputed. NJPS (which I quote primarily because one certainly cannot attribute to them any desire to be Trinitarian) simply transliterates the Heb, and in a footnote says 'Meaning of Heb. uncertain, variously translated "I Am That I Am", "I Am Who I Am", "I Will Be What I Will Be", etc.' It is also sometimes read as causitive case (don't ask me -- I don't claim to know Heb), and translated "I am 'He who causes to be'". However the issue in dealing with a Greek gospel would seem to be how the Greek words were understood by Greek-speaking Jews. The LXX (the standard Greek translation of the OT at the time the NT was written) uses "ego eimi" as a designation for YHWH in Is 51:12, and probably Is 52:6. It also translates "I am YHWH" in Is 45:18 as "ego eimi". This phrase occurs a number of times in John. Sometimes it is part of a simple statement "I am XXX". The places where it seems most clearly to be saying something unusual are Jn 8:58 ("Before Abraham even came into existence, I AM"), and Jn 8:24, 8:28, and 13:19 (all referring to people believing that I AM). You may if you wish understand an implict "I am the Messiah", but I'm somewhat dubious, particularly in the case of 8:58. Jn 6:20 is slightly more ambiguous. "ego eimi" is a particular favorite of John's. But there are a few interesting examples in the Synoptics. Mk 14:62 = Lk. 22:70: Jesus is asked if he is the Messiah. He says "ego eimi". The onlookers tear their garments, seeing it as blasphemy. It is not blasphemy to claim to be the Messiah. Mt 14:27 = Mk 6:50: "ego eimi; do not be afraid" This one is more ambiguous. Similarly Lk 24:36. Note that I do not claim that these passages alone prove the Trinitarian case. I mention them as one piece of evidence that you should take account of. I'm not sure I'd say they mean directly "I == YHWH". However they do seem to mean something strong enough to cause Jews to either fall to the ground or tear their garments. Even if you choose to interpret them as meaning "I am the Messiah", you should factor this into your idea of what Messiah means. --clh]
jking@apollo.hp.com (John King) (09/18/89)
smith_w@apollo.hp.com (Walter Smith @ Apollo Computer, Chelmsford, MA) writes: > I also did research into the tract James is examining here. Mine was directed >at the section called 'What the ante-nicene fathers taught". The JW's claim >Tertullian, Justin Martyr, Iraneaus, etc., were anti-trinity. I went to the >library and read some of their works, like Tertullian on the soul, Dialog >with Trypho (justin Martyr), etc. What I found was that these people said >things quite different from what the JW imply. This did not suprise me. When you went to the library, Walter, did you ignore the refernces I suggested you look up in the Catholic Encyclopedia and the Encylopedia of Religion on Justin Martyr and Tertullian? Both volumes are at the Nashua Public library near your house. >What did, was that the early christian writers I read all believed that Jesus >Christ was the same God who spoke to Moses & the Old Testament prophets; that >Jesus was indeed YHWH (giving Moses the 10 commandents, etc.) of the OT. >I had heard people say that they believed Jesus was mentioned in certain >parts of the OT, but I was not aware that the view of the promenant early >writers was that Jesus was the YHWH of the OT. If Jesus Christ really is >the same YHWH who spoke to the prophets, then the trinity (or at least the >deity of Christ) seems naturally to follow. Jesus is YHWH? This raises some sticky questions. It sounds more Oneness than Trinitarian. Or are you saying that YHWH is the son, not the father. At Ps 83:18 were it says, "That people may know that you whose name is YHWH, You alone are most high over all the earth." ..is this Jesus? Perhaps you can supply some documentation. Jack
mike@unmvax.cs.unm.edu (Michael I. Bushnell) (09/18/89)
While I don't want to get into a discussion of inerrance here, Dave
raised a point I think I need to dispute. He said that God placed
1) into every verse at least one important truth, and 2) that God
arranged every phrase in the original to be exactly what he wanted.
The problem with (1) is typified by Matthew 1. While the entire chapter
certainly has meaning, the difference between verses 5 and 6 seems to
be nonexixtent. In fact, no single verse in that geneology carries the
message that the chapter as a whole does. A holistic attitude is essential.
Which brings up (2). I believe Calvin said something along the lines that
every verse of the Bible, taken alone, every chapter, taken alone, every
book, taken alone, each of these is meaningless. They only have meaning when
viewed in the context of the whole, and, when viewed in that context, may
have a meaning very different from what one would expect given only
the passage alone. He said this in an attempt to stop the pointless
counter- and counter-counter-proof-texting that was going on.
So, whether you accept inerrancy or not, that doesn't mean that you
can read a verse, or even an entire book, and expect to grasp its meaning.
Just because (if you accept inerrancy), God meant what he said when he
said XXX, doesn't mean that XXX in isolation has the meaning you think
it does. And before you say that you understand the need for context, what
Calvin and I are talking about here is broader than context. We are saying
that each epistle and each psalm are all essential to undersanding the
book of Joshua, in any of its particulars. We are saying that only an
understanding of the bible in its whole, guided by the Holy Spirit, is
our guide to religion, and that the bible in its parts is not a guide
to religion. The Word is a single thing, indivisible, without meaning
when dissected.
--
Michael I. Bushnell \ This above all; to thine own self be true
LIBERTE, EGALITE, FRATERNITE \ And it must follow, as the night the day,
mike@unmvax.cs.unm.edu /\ Thou canst not be false to any man.
Telephone: +1 505 292 0001 / \ Farewell: my blessing season this in thee!mike@unmvax.cs.unm.edu (Michael I. Bushnell) (09/18/89)
Here's my two cents on Protestant interpretation of sacraments.
I am a Presbyterian, so my views are essentially those of Calvin, and
to a lesser extent, Luther and Zwingli. I like most of what Dan
said, so I'll fill in what I see as the gaps in his statements.
An important distinction between the Protestant and Catholic views
of the sacraments is their necessity. According to Catholic doctrine,
the act of the sacrament causes the dispensation of grace. In fact,
to miss Mass for an entire year is viewed as a sin.
In Calvinst doctrine, the sacraments are sacred acts (and, as such,
must be instituted by God, for man cannot decide what will be sacred
to God) which involve a material and a spritual component. In the case
of baptism, water is the material component, and the spiritual component
is the claiming of the baptized for God. But one can be fully accepted
by Christ without baptism; it is a sign and a dedication which is not
essential to grace.
The Lord's Supper is viewed somewhat differently by different Protestant
denominations. The first view, that of Luther, is that the material component,
the bread and FOTV (fruit of the vine *), while not corporally Christ's body
and blood, are directly inhabited by his spirit. The second view, that
of Calvin, is that the bread and the FOTV are the tools we use to represent
that during the act of communion, God enters into our souls, but his spirit
is not directly present in the elements. The third view, that of Zwingli,
is that the elements are merely symbols for Christ's love and sacrifice, and
that communion is the symbolic remembrance of his death, but carries no
spiritual meaning directly tied to the act of communion.
Most Lutherans still hold to the view of Luther, as do, as far as I know,
most other non-Calvinistic high churches such as the Episcopalian and
Anglican. Most Presbyterians hold to either Calvin's or Zwingli's views,
the official position of the church being that of Calvin.
But the real difference between the way all Protestants seem to view the
sacraments and the way Catholic doctrine does, is that to Protestants
(remember "grace by faith alone"?) the sacraments are signs, or spiritual
events, or something else, but never necessary for grace. On the other
hand, to Catholics, they are essential, in concept, to grace. Hence the
debates in the middle ages over issues like validity of the sacraments when
performed by an unrepentant sinning priest, or what the status of unbaptized
infants is. Protestants still have the same question about infants, but
don't regard the baptism as the sole deciding factor for salvation.
(*) I use "fruit of the vine" since, out of respect for people who can't use
wine, a large number of congregations now use grape juice in communion.
--
Michael I. Bushnell \ This above all; to thine own self be true
LIBERTE, EGALITE, FRATERNITE \ And it must follow, as the night the day,
mike@unmvax.cs.unm.edu /\ Thou canst not be false to any man.
Telephone: +1 505 292 0001 / \ Farewell: my blessing season this in thee!
[ You say that " during the act of communion, God enters into our
souls, but his spirit is not directly present in the elements." This
statement suggests that Calvin did not accept the presence of Christ's
body and blood in the sacrament. Calvin is normally understood as
having said that we do really commune with with Christ's body and
blood, although this communion is mediated through the Holy Spirit.
Thus the body and blood are not physically present but are spiritually
present to us. --clh]jking@apollo.hp.com (John King) (09/22/89)
[Lance asks how a created being could fit the description of Christ's role in creation given in Col 1:16 --clh] Why. As the Only-begotten son of God he has been elevated to a superior position (. Phil 2:9). Note who did the elevating. Prov 8:22-31 describes the Messiah as the "master worker". >John 1:3 was then used to show that nothing was made that Jesus did >not make. Stop here. All the apostle is saying is that God created everything through Jesus. Back in vs. 1, John states how the Word was in the beginning. Since God has no beginning, the distinction is clear. Jesus (the Word) was the beginning of creation (Rev 3:14). >Col 2:9 For in Him dwells all the fullness of the Godhead bodily. Note Rev. 5:6 were it states that the Lamb has 7 spirits of God. Seven represents heavenly completeness (remember Rev is very symbolic). This means Jesus has the fullness of the holy spirit. Also, as God's first creation, he is the image of the Living God. [some passages dealing with "I AM", John 8:58: before Abraham was, I AM --clh] As mentioned in my previous post, since their in no present tense of the verb "to be" in Hebrew, to translate Ex 3:14 "I AM WHO I AM" either shows a serious lack of scholarship, or a clear bias to fit doctrine to scripture. Besides, his name is given not in verse 14, but verse 15. [Lk 2:11, referring to Christ as savior --clh] Jude 25 states, "to the only God our Saviour, THROUGH Jesus Christ our Lord.." 2 things to note. Here is one more of many examples in scripture where Jesus is clearly differentiated from God. Secondly, ultimatley God is mankinds Saviour, but it was THROUGH Jesus since he became the ransom for mankind. [Heb 1:6, saying the Jesus is worshipped by angels --clh] Greek is a far more descriptive language than english. The word proskuneo is just one more example. In the parable sited in Math 18, the slave is obviously not worshipping his master. He is bowing before him in homage and respect. The only word in english which comes close to the intent of the context is 'obeisance'. Jesus is certainly worthy of this, but he is not to be worshipped. For example, who should we pray to, Jesus or the Father (Math 6:9)? >God (the Father) refers to Jesus as God > But to the Son He says, "Your throne, O God, is forever and > ever;" Heb 1:8 "But with reference to the Son he says, 'God is your throne forever'" -NWT. What other bibles agree with this rendering? Try these: The Bible-An American Translation -- Goodspeed The Bible in Living English -- Byington A New Translation of the Bible -- Moffatt The 20th Century New Testament B.F. Westcott goes into a nice analysis of Ps 45:6,7 from which Heb 1:8 is quoted. ["The Epistle to the Hebrews"; pg 25-26] >Stephen prayed to Jesus. > And they stoned Stephen as he was calling on God and saying, > "Lord Jesus, receive my spirit." Acts 7:59 "And as they stoned Stephen, he made appeal and said, "Lord Jesus, receive my spirit." - NWT. This rendering also agrees with the NIV, LB, RS, JB, and the Greek text." Also note that in vs 55 it pictures Stephen seeing the glory of GOD, and Jesus at his right side. This is profoundly significant since once again there is a clear distinction between GOD (the Father) and Jesus. >I am out of time for today. Hopefully, I will be able to post >something tomorrow that will show how JW's are wrong about some >obvious biblical truths. Please don't bother, Lance. There are about a half dozen other people on the net who are continually bleating about JWs. Nothing you quoted above is new. They have been flying around the net for years. Whatever religion you practice, Lance, is fine with me. I have no intention of attacking it on a public network. Please show the same restraint. Jack [I understand that this looked like a typical attempt to throw proof texts at you, so I see why you reacted this way. But I've talked with Lance privately, and I think he is genuinely interested in understanding you. --clh]
jking@apollo.hp.com (John King) (09/22/89)
Comment on the moderators comment: > The LXX (the >standard Greek translation of the OT at the time the NT was written) >uses "ego eimi" as a designation for YHWH in Is 51:12, and probably Is >52:6. It also translates "I am YHWH" in Is 45:18 as "ego eimi" This does not surprise me. The earlier copies of the LXX had the Hebrew YHWH in the greek text. In later copies it had been edited out. To respond to queries with the simple "I am" was very common. For example, just a few verses beyond the "famous", "I AM" statement by Jesus at John 8:58, at John 9:9, when a begger was asked if he was the one connected with Jesus, he responded, "I AM". Strange that no one started ripping their garments. I might add that there were many things in the Jewish culture of Jesus' day that resulted in charges of blastphemy. The account in Mark 14:61 is clear. He said "I AM" to the direct question of, 'Do you claim to be the SON if God'. Jack
horton@b11.ingr.com (Mac Horton) (09/23/89)
In article <Sep.11.02.15.12.1989.5294@athos.rutgers.edu> rock@sun.com (Bill Petro) writes: [long very well-done summary of the development of Christological doctrine] This was a great summary, which I've saved as a handy reference (I never *can* remember what Apollinarianism is). But you go rather wildly wrong at the end in describing Catholic teachings. Our moderator summed up the mistakes well enough, but I'd like to expand a couple of points. >What is the "Ex opere operato" faith of the Roman Church? It >is the idea that grace comes to you by the performing of certain >sacraments. The sacraments are instruments by which one can always count on receiving grace (IF one is disposed to receive it) but by no means the only instruments. The grace comes to the recipient, not to the performer. Though the grace is always present if the sacrament is validly administered--this is what "ex opere operato" means--it may not have its effect if the recipient is in one way or another not disposed to receive it, as for instance by being in a state of serious sin. >There are seven of them, but two of them cancel each other >out, marriage and celibacy, as it seems that you can't be in both of >these states. Celibacy is not a sacrament. Ordination to the priesthood is, and I think that's what you mean, because most priests are required to be celibate. The celibacy is only a rule of discipline, and has nothing to do with the sacrament as such. > As you perform the sacraments you accrue merit, and when >you have acrrued enough merit you may get yourself out of Purgatory, >that interim waiting state, into Heaven itself. So Heaven is both >earned and given. It is not free grace, it is merited. So by the >Roman system you merit the merit of Christ by your meritorius good >works. Grace is a free gift of God and salvation always starts with it. Nothing could be more alien to the Catholic mind than the notion that you can save yourself. The sacraments don't give merit, they provide access to grace, and by means of that grace one gains the power to become holy. It is only at that point that "merit" comes into the picture. In a sense one can be said to "merit" heaven, but only after God has reached down with his grace, and one has responded to that grace. Well, I'm repeating the moderator, so that's enough. I can see why there is confusion on this issue as the doctrine is easily caricatured or misunderstood, even by Catholics, into something like what you say. But the official teachings of the Church are pretty clear, especially post-Reformation, when the whole matter became such an important issue. -- Mac Horton @ Intergraph | horton@ingr.COM | ..uunet!ingr!horton -- A love that's real will not fade away. --Petty/Hardin (via Buddy Holly)
palosaari@oxy.edu (Jedidiah Jon Palosaari) (09/27/89)
John King raised some questions in my mind, so I went to the Bible to dig up
some thoughts. From a brief review, it seemed that there would have to be
some disagreement with his Biblical findings. However, I am by no means
greatly versed in the Scriptures (at least in comparison to some), and only
propose thoughts here. I would find it very enlightening if someone would
comment on these thoughts, as to their validity.
Anyway, John says near the beginning of his letter that
>Back in vs. 1, John states how the Word was in the beginning. Since God
>has no beginning, the distinction [between God and Jesus] is clear.
It seems to me, that, as the Bible was written for us humans, and not God or
Jesus, that that beginning would be reffering to our beginning, and that of
the material world, and not God's. ie., The Word (Jesus) was there in the
beginning, but "the beginning" refers to the beginning of existance *as we
know it*.
John quotes (I believe it is in Lance's letter) Col 2:9, which says "
For in Him dwells al the fullness of the Godhead bodily". It is obviously
referring to Jesus Christ here (I believe if you we can all agree on that),
but some manuscripts refer to the passage as "God appeared in body". What's
interesting about this, is that, the same passage is used in different
manuscripts to refer to both God and Jesus, and also that it says that *God*
appeared in body. Now, it seems to me that, either God appeared another tim
e we don't know about, or else it's reffering to Jesus as God appearing in
body.
It's always seemed to me that the 3 members of the Godhead simply have
different jobs, but are all God. One might do the sending, another the work
with humans, another the work in humans. But each job would be equally
important. (Note: the previous is strictly hypothesis.) John makes a
important point about how many passages refer to God as doing the sending,
and I gather from this that we are to see Jesus as just a tool of God's, if
the most important tool. But another passage, John 15:26, has Jesus saying
"When the counselor comes, whom I will send to you from the Father...". It
seems here, that if there is any kind of Godhead heiarchy, that it would be
Jesus in charge, as He is doing the sending, and He is also sending it from
the Father, who in this case acts only as a repository. However, I do not
believe that there is any Godhead heirarchy, but that it seems more that all
members of the Godhead are equal, and another way of saying John 15:26 would
be "When I come, whom I will send to you from Myself...".
John goes on to describe the different Hebrew words for worship, amoung
them proskuneo, a word for homage and obeisance. (Sorry, I meant *Greek*
words for worship.) It did not seem entirely clear from John's letter as to
whether or not proskuneo was used in Hebrew 1:6. I would appreciate a
response from John as to the Greek wording of that passage. John says that
Jesus is not worthy of worship, and yet there are numerous passages where
Jesus is worshipped, and it would appear with more than proskuneo. The Magi
worshipped Him with gifts, and Luke 24:52, Mathew 14:33 and 28:9 all have
examples of Jesus being worshipped. Even Revelations, which John pointed ou
t was a very symbolic book, has the elders worshipping the Lamb
(representing Jesus) by bowing down to Him repeatedly in Revelations 5:8.
If what the elders say and do is not worship, than I am at a loss to know wh
at is. And if it is worship, than we seem to have somewhat of a dillemma.
For God commands us to have no other gods before Him, and to worship only
Him. So either these are instances of worship of God, or else the Magi, the
apostles/disciples, and the 24 elders are all in direct disobediance of a
jealous God.
I have one last hypothesis. John mentions that Jesus commanded us to
pray to God, or the Heavely Father, but not to Jesus. Yet the apostle
group repeatedly did things in the name of Jesus, speaking to the spiritual
world (demons) in that name. So it occured to me, that perhaps the reason
the apostle/disciples didn't pray to Jesus was the same reason they didn't
fast-Jesus was still with them. (Recall the story of the disciples eating
grain in the field on the Sabbath. The pharisees ask why Jesus allows this,
and He reply's that He is still with them. When He leaves, than they will
have plenty cause and time to fast.)
Again, I am not attempting to set down doctrine, but only ideas. I
would appreciate any response to the ideas from any corner.
[The UBS 2nd edition shows no alternative readings in Col 2:9. I can't
find any source for "God appeared in body".
Yes, proskuneo is the word in Heb 1:6. Gingrich says this about that
word: "(fall down and) worship, do obeisance to, prostrate oneself
before, do reverence to, welcome respectfully, depending upon the
object." He then cites examples where it is applied to human beings,
God, the devil and Satanic beings, angels, and Christ. It seems
pretty clear that the word is sufficiently context-dependent that it's
hard to prove exactly what kind of respect Jesus is worthy of based on
that word. I don't agree with Jack that it is always weaker than the
true worship that is owed to God, since it is used for exactly that in
many passages. But it is used in enough other contexts that I do
agree that it doesn't prove much. Three passages you cite: Lk 24:52,
Mt 14:33, Mt 28:9, use the proskuneo. Rev 5:8 says "fall before".
--clh]