RE: In the Beginning

[PaulSacramento]

I think that one of the the reasons I am NOT a big fun of the Trinity Doctrine is because people get it so "muddled" up.
Sure IF the doctrine was to have been developed NOW, the wording would have been different.
Of course we need always to remember that the wording was what was for those times and I think the issue that people have IS the wording.
If we are to look at the NT writings we can't deny that Christ had not only "godlike" qualities but responsibilities too.
Unless we are to ignore the OT or view it as wrong,then for Jesus to be our saviour he must be of the same nature as God.
Not God in a manifestation or God in another role, but One that shares the same nature as God but with His own personality, distinct from The Father.
We see in the OT the spirit of God working and in the NT we see the HS working from God and from Christ, uniting both in a bond of eternal love.
The HS is GOD and is Jesus, it proceeds from Both and yet is distinct from both.
One may have issues with how the Trinity is "explained", but that is because our language is not up to the task to explain ALL that is Divine.
To deny the Trinity is to deny Christ and the HS, to deny Jesus's offer of salvation and the HS guiding power of redemption because if they are not One with God, by nature GOD, then their offer of salavation and redemption is false.

[Philip]

I recently had an interesting experience with the father of a long-time friend. This man believed in Jesus, that He was the Son of God, but somehow didn't believe that Jesus was also God. So he rejected the Trinity. This man was passionate for scripture, but selectively so. Also, he had a Christian Science background. I sent him some very detailed info which took him throughout both the OT and NT to show the truth of the Trinity and that Jesus is God. I told him that just believing in Jesus, even believing he was raised from the dead, yet without also believing He was fully God, was insufficient for salvation. As such belief merely meant, much like many cults, his belief was not in the Jesus of scripture, but in one of his on personal constructs. To not believe in the Jesus as taught by scripture is to also reject the actual living Jesus/God.

To my joyful surprise, this man absorbed in depth the comprehensive info I gave him. The next time I saw him, he told me, "I now believe Jesus is God, and that Father, Son and Spirit are ALL also equally God. It's scriptural, it's undeniable." And so that really showed me that when one gets away from selective proofing of scripture, and examines and compares each passage against its whole, then the Trinity is very difficult to deny.

[jlay]

The Bible doesn't attempt to formulate a doctrine of the trinity. Men are very big on doctrines and systmatic theology.

My pastor said this in our bible study the other morning.
Quote: "If you don't believe in the trinity, then you can't be saved."
Since the doctrine of the trinity wasn't formulated until after the 1st century, I'm trying to determine whether this is a valid claim. Now please note, I am not denying the trinity. I believe it as much as I can understand it.

I'd like some feedback. Since in the same discussion he said, as do many scholars, that the trinity is one of the most difficult doctrines to get your mind around. (agreed) When I became a believer I can't say that I was trusting in the doctrine of the trinity. I was trusting that Christ was my savior. I of course, as do the overwhelming majority of Christians, accept the trinity or the triune God head. One God in three persons/manifestations.

Must a lost person come to a place of embracing the trinity prior to their faith in Christ as Savior? What are your thoughts?

One thing that is common among cults is that the reject or distort the diety of Christ.

[PaulSacramento]

Believing in the Trinity doctrine is NOT a "prerequisite for salvation".
To even suggest that is, well a pastor should know better.
Where does Paul or any apostle or even Jesus say that to be saved we must believe in the doctrine of the Trinity?
Where is it stated that we must believe that God, Christ and the HS are *insert any part of Trinity doctrine here* to be saved?

[jlay]

Paul, I don't disagree, but you said,

To deny the Trinity is to deny Christ and the HS, to deny Jesus's offer of salvation and the HS guiding power of redemption because if they are not One with God, by nature GOD, then their offer of salavation and redemption is false.

And I might say a similar thing. So maybe you can see my dilema. I don't want to put words in my pastors mouth and perhaps I will ask for clarification at next meeting.

[RickD]

Jlay wrote:

My pastor said this in our bible study the other morning.
Quote: "If you don't believe in the trinity, then you can't be saved."

Jlay, would have had a problem if I heard a pastor say that, too. I wouldn't let him off the hook until he explains that one.

TBH, I hadn't really thought too much about the Trinity, for years after I accepted Christ. So, was I not saved all those years?

[KBCid]

For those who wish to illuminate this discussion spend a minute on this thought.
If Christ is the only begotten of the father as a unique identity then there was a time when the father had not begotten his Son. right?

[Furstentum Liechtenstein]

You assert that the bible won't make sense to me until I do what you say to do, but it is not the bible that doesn't make sense to me... it is the interpretations of others that make no sense when compared to the bible. My heart is not hardened against God. It was by his will and love that I exist. I have no desire to do anything other than what he wants me to do. I have studied the various religions and found all of them failing except one. This one book maintains its truth in every way I have looked at it. It would be my position that if I didn't love God I wouldn't read his word and try to understand exactly what he wants. By observing what other Christian sects have done I know that they can make huge errors by the method they used to set themselves apart and it is quite clear to me that not everyone who claims to be Christian will become one with the father. It would appear that many, many Christians who claim to have repented and accept Jesus as Lord don't speak with the oneness of God.

Why are you so vague about your faith? Are you a Christadelphian? Rosicrucian? Raelian?

For those who wish to illuminate this discussion spend a minute on this thought.
If Christ is the only begotten of the father as a unique identity then there was a time when the father had not begotten his Son. right?

You are in deep darkness. Christ is God and is eternal. See Dt 6:4, Jn 1:1; Ex 3:14, Jn 8:58.

FL

[KBCid]

Why are you so vague about your faith? Are you a Christadelphian? Rosicrucian? Raelian?

I would insist that I have been quite clear about my faith since I stated "that I know God the father and Christ his son created the heavens and the earth". I have also written several times that Jesus is the Christ and the Son of God. right? What could possibly be vague about those points?
I have chosen to not join with any sect as each of them so far has differing understandings of God's word. I am choosing to learn about my maker by testing each of the beliefs that man has formed concerning God and choosing to hold fast that which is correct.
Tell me which Christian belief system should I join with; Roman catholic, Eastern Orthodox, Protestant, Anglican/Episcopalian, Amish, Baptists, Lutheran, Presbyterian, Quakers, Seventh-day Adventists, etc. etc....

You are in deep darkness. Christ is God and is eternal. See Dt 6:4, Jn 1:1; Ex 3:14, Jn 8:58. FL

as I previously noted, me being "in deep darkness" is one possibility that is open for correction and as I also noted previously God is eternal, the question here was about his Son, his only 'begotten' Son. God does not lie, he begat a Son. We have one of two choices;
1) we either believe God when he said he begot a Son or
2) we don't believe he begot a Son and that he is playing the part of being his own son.

Just to recap so that 'we' are clear. God the father is eternal. God the father begot a Son whose name is Jesus Christ. To beget means;
1) to procreate as the father
2) to produce especially as an effect or outgrowth
http://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/beget

If you feel that the word Beget or begot or begotten is incorrectly used in the biblical account then I invite you to provide a counter argument for why such must be the case. This is where you are invited to test my understanding and show how it is or may be wrong. Simply stating that I am "in darkness" is a similarity of how evolutionists have labeled me when I don't agree with their POV. This leads to zero learning. It simply becomes an assault on the person. I prefer not to delve in such conduct as it is ultimately a waste of the few precious moments that I have been given in this life to learn about my maker.

[Furstentum Liechtenstein]

KBCid,

I'm not suggesting that you join a religion. You don't have to, and you can be a genuine Christian without ever going to a place of worship.

I really don't understand what you believe in; I understand that you believe in the Bible, for you have been claiming this since the start. Bear in mind that the Sanhedrin also believed in the Bible and were experts in Law, yet were mistaken about their own Messiah.

FL

[KBCid]

KBCid, I really don't understand what you believe in; I understand that you believe in the Bible, for you have been claiming this since the start. Bear in mind that the Sanhedrin also believed in the Bible and were experts in Law, yet were mistaken about their own Messiah. FL

I don't know what else I can enlighten you about myself in regards to beliefs. As you noted earlier I am closest to a weak agnostic which is true. A weak agnostic will accept that God exists with enough evidence. I have enough evidence. I don't need to believe in his existence, I know he exists.
I recognise that as time passed since Christ walked the earth that satan is doing his best to transform the word of God into a useless understanding as we can all see by the vast array of variance in beliefs. Simply accepting what others say to believe is absolutely unacceptable. I have no wish to follow in the errors of the fathers or follow the traditions implemented by men which are in direct violation of Gods commands. There isn't much more that I can clarify about myself. I simply wish to test my understanding. I want to live by every word of the mouth of God not by every interpretation of men or myself for that matter.

[Philip]

Doctrine, smoctrine! No, it is not the DOCTRINE of the Trinity one must believe in to be saved. But saving faith comes from and must be in GOD. And so if someone doesn't believe that Jesus is GOD, then they have a faith in a counterfeit Jesus, and thus they do also do not believe that He is Who He said He is. Someone please tell me how one can be saved if they don't believe Jesus is God? Perhaps saying one has to also have an understanding of the Holy Spirit to be saved is going too far, but for one to say he has faith in a Jesus who is not also God? That's bad theology! Faith in God is ALSO faith that the resurrected JESUS is also GOD! Otherwise, one's faith is not in the God of Scripture! The religious of Jesus' time embraced PART of God (although not obedient to even that part of Him/the Father), but would not accept the rest of God (The Son/Jesus), as He truly is.

[KBCid]

And so if someone doesn't believe that Jesus is GOD, then they have a faith in a counterfeit Jesus, and thus they do also do not believe that He is Who He said He is.

Hmmmm. How could anyone say that Christ is not as divine as his father? Since Christ is the only begoten Son he has as much authority as his father gave him. Of course there are those who believe that God the father plays the role of son in which case there truely is no real begoten son, just an illusion. If you have begotten a son does that mean you and your son are really just you?

Someone please tell me how one can be saved if they don't believe Jesus is God? Perhaps saying one has to also have an understanding of the Holy Spirit to be saved is going too far, but for one to say he has faith in a Jesus who is not also God? That's bad theology! Faith in God is ALSO faith that the resurrected JESUS is also GOD! Otherwise, one's faith is not in the God of Scripture! The religious of Jesus' time embraced PART of God (although not obedient to even that part of Him/the Father), but would not accept the rest of God (The Son/Jesus), as He truly is.

Here is a mystery. How can one be one with God and yet not be God?...
There are a variety of verses where Christ explains how that oneness works. You can still be a unique individual and have the fathers spirit within you. You are then a holy vessel and you and the father are one. Here is a verse that states the exact same thing;

John 14:10 Believest thou not that I am in the Father, and the Father in me? the words that I speak unto you I speak not of myself: but the Father that dwelleth in me, he doeth the works.

Christ is a holy vessel that the fathers spirit can dwell in. When we become one with them the father will also dwell within us. Each of us will then be able to see the father in everyone else and yet we will still have our own unique identity.

[dayage]

KCBid,

Suppose instead of Gen 1:1 being the first act God performed that instead it is a summary of what the text following it is going to explain in more detail. Notice how 2:4 appears to restate Gen 1:1 and resummerises the end of the story which explained how God created "the heavens and the earth".

This will not work, because verse one is tied to verse two. Genesis 1:1 is the first act of creation and it is linked by a waw disjunctive to verse two, which gives a description of the earth which was just formed. The first verse is a merism which describes the creation of the whole universe (stars, galaxies, etc).

I believe this is backed by a correct translation of Genesis 2:3. Unlike what many translations state “God created and made,” this verse actually ends with “…in it He rested from all His work which God created to make.” So after the earth’s creation, God asa, made or transformed it (Is. 45:18). God created the earth "In the beginning" then spent the next six "days" transforming (making) it. So, Genesis 2:3 supports the idea that we have moved from the creation of the universe and earth to the making of earth for man.

Genesis 1:2 gives us a description of the newly created earth and tells us the frame of reference (surface of the waters) from which to interpret the rest of the chapter. Most scholars have pointed out that the waw disjunctive "and" (also called waw copulative and waw conjunction) of Genesis 1:2 connects it to verse one. Dr. Mark Rooker puts it this way: "…Judges 8:11 and Jonah 3:3 are more helpful parallels to the grammatical structure reflected in Genesis 1:1-2, where a finite verb is followed by a waw disjunctive clause containing the verb…. This would confirm the traditional interpretation that verse 1 contains the main independent clause, with Genesis 1:2 consisting of three subordinate circumstantial clauses describing what the just-mentioned earth looked like after it was created."

Genesis 2:4 says, “These are the generations of the heavens and the earth when they [the heavens and the earth] were created, in the day the Lord God made earth and heavens.” Verse 2:4a gives us a merism as in Genesis 1:1, reflecting back on the universe's initial creation. Genesis 2:4b, "in the day" is referring to time period during which God was transforming (making) the earth and sky, in which the "generations" (things which proceed from the original; see Gen. 5:1-32, 10:1-32, 11:10-32, etc.) were brought forth. The generations are the light, expanse, seas, land, plants, lights, animals and man.

Lastly, there is the phrase “and was evening and was morning” at the end of each day’s description. This phrase is used to designate the brackets for each work period. Evening was the time when days transitioned from one to another. It was a period of resting from the previous day’s work. The morning began the current period of work (Psalm 104:22-23). So, each day started with the transition “and was evening” and then began the work period “and was morning.” This makes sense of the fact that day one starts with “and was evening…” and yet it is not introduced until after “And God said” of verse three. The phrase was used here to close off the period designated “In the beginning.” Again, this points away from Genesis 1:1 being a summary and instead to it being the first act of creation.

Professor Ellen van Wolde, a world acclaimed Old Testament scholar... ...looked at the first line of Genesis that reads “in the beginning God created the Heaven and the Earth” and found that the Hebrew text had been translated incorrectly. The proper translation, she argues, is that the Earth was already there when God created humans and animals. The use of bara she argues was “meant to say that God did create humans and animals, but not the Earth itself.” She concludes “[t]he traditional view of God the Creator is untenable now.” http://jonathanturley.org/2009/10/18/cr ... f-genesis/

Just as I thought, she got this idea from other Ancient Near Eastern creation myths. Many skeptics and liberals do this. They try to make the Bible mimic manmade myths. Anyone who has ever read these myths knows that Genesis is very different.
http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/religio ... demic.html

She also says that because there are two subjects mentioned as being "created," that bara here should mean separated. She admits that bara means "to create," but felt that something was wrong. Again, she looks to other myths. She also misses the fact that most scholars believe that "the heavens and the earth" is a merism describing a single concept (the universe).

Lastly, Genesis one consistently uses a single word for separate/divide (badal). It is used in Genesis 1:4, 6, 7, 14 and 18). Why was this word not used if, as Professor Wolde suggests, the intended meaning of Genesis 1:1 was that heaven and earth were separated.

Pro 8:22 The LORD possessed me in the beginning of his way, before his works of old.
Pro 8:23 I was set up from everlasting, from the beginning, or ever the earth was.
Pro 8:24 When there were no depths, I was brought forth...

Christ could not have been 'set up' or 'brought forth 'from everlasting' if time didn't exist since everlasting defines the existence of infinite time.

This is not about Christ; it is about wisdom (an attribute).
Proverbs 7:4
"Say to wisdom, "You are my sister," And call understanding your intimate friend;"

Proverbs 8
"1 Does not wisdom call, And understanding lift up her voice?
2 On top of the heights beside the way, Where the paths meet, she takes her stand;
3 Beside the gates, at the opening to the city, At the entrance of the doors, she cries out:"
(Also see verses 5,11, 12, 14)

Proverbs 9:1
"Wisdom has built her house, She has hewn out her seven pillars;"

[dayage]

KCBid,

Let us not ignore anything pls. I must consider everything to hope for a proper understanding. So lets look at 1Pe 1:20 "Who verily was foreordained before the foundation of the world...". Christ was ordained prior to the formation of the world, I have understood that quite clearly. It is quite clear that there was a time prior to the founding of the earth when Christ was with his father and it was decided that he would come to save those who would be created. The only thing not reffered to in that passage is a begining of time. There was only a reference to a begining of the earth. If you have other verses that state or infer a begining of time pls. post them.

There is that problem of English again. World (kosmos) is a reference to the whole universe, not the earth. Earth is the Greek word ge.

Before Time Began or before the ages of time (pro before, chronos time, aionios, ages)
2 Timothy 1:9
"9 who has saved us and called us with a holy calling, not according to our works, but according to His own purpose and grace which was given to us in Christ Jesus before time began,

Titus 1:2
"2 in hope of eternal life which God, who cannot lie, promised before time began,

Before All Time or Every Age (pro pas aion)
Jude 25
"to the only God our Savior, through Jesus Christ our Lord, be glory, majesty, dominion and authority, before all time and now and forever. Amen."

Before The Beginning of The Universe
Eph. 1:3-4
"4 just as He chose us in Him before the foundation of the world (kosmos), that we should be holy and blameless before Him. In love"

Notice that in 2 Timothy and Titus God's purpose and grace were given to us, and He promised eternal life before time. In Ephesians, God chose us in Christ before the universe. So, we have time and the universe being equated to each other.

Here is the reason that I see Peter using both kosmos (universe) with chronos (time) in a way that suggests their common origin. Noting what was stated above, Peter's statement is said in such a way that kosmos would be equal to the "first times" and then Christ appeared in those "last times" (chronos).
1 Peter 1:20
"For He was foreknown before the foundation of the world (kosmos), but has appeared in these last times (chronos) for the sake of you"