Bart's Invitation

[Byblos]

Hi John,

You asked...

What do you see the difference is between Adam and Jesus then? As I understood what you believe, they were both created (not eternal), and they were both created sinless. Despite that, one sinned and not the other. Why? Did either of their free will have anything to do with their decisions?

I understand they were both created perfect and both had free will. The difference between them is that Adam used his free will to disobey God. Jesus used his to be obedient even to his death (thank goodness).

As to why Adam disobeyed God and Jesus didn't, I assume that it was for the same kind of reasons why we choose to be obedient or not. Among other things, there seems to have been a definite lack of love and appreciation for what God had done for Adam. Jesus didn't have that lack.

Don

Then by the same extension (the one that they were both created beings, albeit sinless, yet one exercised his free will to sin and the other not to sin), is it not possible for us human (created) beings to exercise our free will to remain sinless (despite the fact that we were born with Adam's transgression attached)? In other words, one could argue that Adam's free will negated his sinless nature with which he was created when he used his free will to sin. Can not our free will negate our sinful nature and allow us to remain sinless? If not, why not?

[DonCameron]

Hello again Judah,

You asked me...

"Can you point out to me which aspect of the Athanasian Creed is not orthodox Christian belief?"

It looks to me that all of what the Athanasian Creed states is considered "orthodox" or "right teaching" by most Christian religions. But does that fact automatically mean that therefore everything the Creed states is "Christian belief"? I

It seems reasonable to me that it what that Creed states is Christian belief then I'll find what it states in the Christian Bible. And there are parts of it that I have found in the Bible...

"One Christ
Who suffered for our salvation, descended into hell,
rose again the third day from the dead.
He ascended into heaven, he sitteth at the right hand of the Father,
God Almighty, from whence he will come
to judge the quick and the dead.
At whose coming all men will rise again with their bodies
and shall give account for their own works.
And they that have done good shall go into life
everlasting; and they that have done evil into everlasting fire."

But that's about all I could find so far. Everything else seems to have simply come from the reasoning of someone by the name of Athanasia.

Next, you said...

Don, You quote John 20:30,31 to show what is required for salvation.
Yet James 2:18-20 tells us that "Even the demons believe that—and shudder."

Not to get too picky, but what James said the demons believe is that there is "one God" not that "Jesus is the Christ, the Son of God." Although I suppose they do also believe that Jesus is God's Son.

If I were one of those demons I too would shudder because I would know that in my case, that belief won't result in everlasting life but rather my everlasting punishment.

You asked...

Isn't there some simplification going on here in your quotation of that one verse? Is "to believe" just an intellectual assent, or is it much much more?

I agree that there is more to it. But the question is, How much more is required? For example, Is it necessary to believe everything Athanasia said in order to be saved? Or is it only necessary to believe what a man by the name of Paul said was necessary to be saved?…

"If you declare that Jesus is Lord, and have faith in your heart that God raised him up from the dead, you will be saved." - Romans 10:9

This also may sound too simple, but that's what the apostle Paul said.

Something else I noticed in the above Scriptures is that neither John nor Paul said anything about having to believe that the Holy Spirit is God. They don't even mention the Holy Spirit.

There are those two "greatest commandments" that Jesus gave us about loving God and loving our neighbor as ourselves.

Can you think of anything else we must believe in order to be saved?

Don

[FFC]

Don,

Did I miss the part around here where somebody said you had to believe in the trinity to be saved? I think the only thing we are told to do is believe in the name of Jesus Christ to have eternal life.

However, I think it is spiritually prudent to make sure that you understand all that goes with that name and are not preaching a counterfeit Jesus Christ. Most of us here see abundant evidence in the scriptures that point at a triune God. You yourself have given many great pro trinity verses yourself, even though you deny it.

I'm going to be blunt, Don. If we are wrong, the only thing we will be guilty of is attaching too much honor to The Son of God. You on the other hand strip Him of His Deity, His eternal status, the uniqueness of His sonship etc. This is dangerous territory because according to Paul's teaching it is quite possible, even probable that you are preaching a false gospel.

1Cr 12:3 Wherefore I give you to understand, that no man speaking by the Spirit of God calleth Jesus accursed: and [that] no man can say that Jesus is the Lord, but by the Holy Ghost.

[Judah]

Next, you said...

Don, You quote John 20:30,31 to show what is required for salvation.
Yet James 2:18-20 tells us that "Even the demons believe that—and shudder."

Not to get too picky, but what James said the demons believe is that there is "one God" not that "Jesus is the Christ, the Son of God." Although I suppose they do also believe that Jesus is God's Son.

If I were one of those demons I too would shudder because I would know that in my case, that belief won't result in everlasting life but rather my everlasting punishment.

Yes, that verse in James does say that the demons believe that there is "one God" - but they also know who Jesus is.
Mark 1:34 and Jesus healed many who had various diseases. He also drove out many demons, but he would not let the demons speak because they knew who he was.
Often when Jesus casts out demons, they beg him to send them to somewhere in particular (such as into the herd of swine) thereby acknowledging the power and authority of Jesus to do so.
My point was that demons believe - but they are not saved. They believe in the one God while knowing who Jesus is, and yet this belief still does not save them. Therefore there is some different quality or aspect of belief that is the tipping point leading to salvation.

I was using that point to demonstrate that a single verse on it's own does not present the whole depth of the Gospel message. We learn more as we read and come to understand the whole picture - and what we are saying here is that this whole picture presents a triune God, the trinity of three Persons of the Godhead, all of the same substance, which the writer of the Athanasian Creed has done a fair job in describing.

[Judah]

Don,

Did I miss the part around here where somebody said you had to believe in the trinity to be saved? I think the only thing we are told to do is believe in the name of Jesus Christ to have eternal life.

However, I think it is spiritually prudent to make sure that you understand all that goes with that name and are not preaching a counterfeit Jesus Christ. Most of us here see abundant evidence in the scriptures that point at a triune God. You yourself have given many great pro trinity verses yourself, even though you deny it.

I'm going to be blunt, Don. If we are wrong, the only thing we will be guilty of is attaching too much honor to The Son of God. You on the other hand strip Him of His Deity, His eternal status, the uniqueness of His sonship etc. This is dangerous territory because according to Paul's teaching it is quite possible, even probable that you are preaching a false gospel.

1Cr 12:3 Wherefore I give you to understand, that no man speaking by the Spirit of God calleth Jesus accursed: and [that] no man can say that Jesus is the Lord, but by the Holy Ghost.

I agree completely with what FFC has said here. We are told to believe in Jesus for eternal life, but we must also believe the truth about Him - not anything less than the truth, the whole truth (and certainly differently from however demons hold that belief!)

[DonCameron]

Hi again FFC,

You pointed out...

If we (Trinitarians) are wrong, the only thing we will be guilty of is attaching too much honor to The Son of God. You on the other hand strip Him of His Deity, His eternal status, the uniqueness of His sonship etc. This is dangerous territory because according to Paul's teaching it is quite possible, even probable that you are preaching a false gospel.

But might it not be equally true that if we mistakenly attach of too much honor to the Son that we would likewise be preaching a false gospel? I don't picture Jesus or his Father wanting us to elevate him to some position above the one his Father elevated him to.

Next: You quoted 1 Corinthians 12:3...

1Cr 12:3 Wherefore I give you to understand, that no man speaking by the Spirit of God calleth Jesus accursed: and [that] no man can say that Jesus is the Lord, but by the Holy Ghost.

First of all I notice that you underlined "the Lord." I don't know if it makes a real big difference, but although the older King James Version does read "the Lord," almost all other translations read "Jesus is Lord." - See http://www.biblegateway.com

Second of all I notice that Paul didn't say that "no man can say that Jesus is God, but by the Holy Ghost."

This verse reminds me of what Paul explained to the Corinthians where he reminds us that although there have been many false gods that have been worshipped by mankind, there is only one true God for Christians. As you know, he said...

"We know that there is no God but one."

The question is, Who is this one God that Christians worship.

As of today, it looks like you and I worship two different Gods. I think I understand it correctly when I say that you worship the one God that the Athanasian Creed explains. You worship the Triune God that is composed of three separate Persons: God the Father, God the Son and God the Holy Spirit. They are all co-eternal and co-equal together. Three separate Persons who make up the one God.

On the other hand, the God I worship is composed of just one single Person; God the Father.

Question: Which above God is the one Paul worshipped? About that God he explained...

We know there is no God but one. For even though there are those who are called "gods", whether in heaven or on earth, just as there are many "gods"... there is actually to us one God, the Father.

I notice that Paul didn't say...

...there is actually to one God, the Father, Son and Holy Spirit."

If he had said it this latter way then that's the God I would worship. But he not only didn't say it this way, he did say it a different way that is exactly the same way I understand who God is - God the Father.

Rather then Jesus being God Himself, I understand that he is the Mediator between God and us just like Paul explained to Timothy...

For there is one God, and one Mediator between God and men, a man Jesus Christ. 1 Timothy 2:5

And too, I noticed that the Holy Spirit is not even mentioned in Paul's definition of the one God Christians worship.

How do I get past these statements by the apostle Paul?

Don

P.S. While it is true that Paul did mention Jesus in his discussion, he didn't include him in his definition of who God is. He left out both Jesus and the Holy Spirit. Of the "many lords" who have existed, Paul said that Jesus is the "one Lord" (or "Master") that Christians should acknowledge.

[puritan lad]

Don,

You didn't deal with my post. Why does the Bible refer to Jesus Christ as Jehovah? Why does it refer to the Holy Spirit as Jehovah?

I'll go on record as saying that anyone who denies Christ's deity cannot be saved. If you deny the Son, you do not have the Father. What was the error of the Pharisees, but the denial of the Divinity of Christ?

[Byblos]

And when you get the chance, I'm still waiting for a response to my last post too. (no pressure though ).

[FFC]

Hi again FFC,

You pointed out...

If we (Trinitarians) are wrong, the only thing we will be guilty of is attaching too much honor to The Son of God. You on the other hand strip Him of His Deity, His eternal status, the uniqueness of His sonship etc. This is dangerous territory because according to Paul's teaching it is quite possible, even probable that you are preaching a false gospel.

But might it not be equally true that if we mistakenly attach of too much honor to the Son that we would likewise be preaching a false gospel? I don't picture Jesus or his Father wanting us to elevate him to some position above the one his Father elevated him to.

Next: You quoted 1 Corinthians 12:3...

1Cr 12:3 Wherefore I give you to understand, that no man speaking by the Spirit of God calleth Jesus accursed: and [that] no man can say that Jesus is the Lord, but by the Holy Ghost.

First of all I notice that you underlined "the Lord." I don't know if it makes a real big difference, but although the older King James Version does read "the Lord," almost all other translations read "Jesus is Lord." - See http://www.biblegateway.com

Second of all I notice that Paul didn't say that "no man can say that Jesus is God, but by the Holy Ghost."

This verse reminds me of what Paul explained to the Corinthians where he reminds us that although there have been many false gods that have been worshipped by mankind, there is only one true God for Christians. As you know, he said...

"We know that there is no God but one."

The question is, Who is this one God that Christians worship.

As of today, it looks like you and I worship two different Gods. I think I understand it correctly when I say that you worship the one God that the Athanasian Creed explains. You worship the Triune God that is composed of three separate Persons: God the Father, God the Son and God the Holy Spirit. They are all co-eternal and co-equal together. Three separate Persons who make up the one God.

On the other hand, the God I worship is composed of just one single Person; God the Father.

Question: Which above God is the one Paul worshipped? About that God he explained...

We know there is no God but one. For even though there are those who are called "gods", whether in heaven or on earth, just as there are many "gods"... there is actually to us one God, the Father.

I notice that Paul didn't say...

...there is actually to one God, the Father, Son and Holy Spirit."

If he had said it this latter way then that's the God I would worship. But he not only didn't say it this way, he did say it a different way that is exactly the same way I understand who God is - God the Father.

Rather then Jesus being God Himself, I understand that he is the Mediator between God and us just like Paul explained to Timothy...

For there is one God, and one Mediator between God and men, a man Jesus Christ. 1 Timothy 2:5

And too, I noticed that the Holy Spirit is not even mentioned in Paul's definition of the one God Christians worship.

How do I get past these statements by the apostle Paul?

Don

And what part of any of that negates the truth of the trinity clearly revealed in scripture?

[Byblos]

Hello again Judah,

You asked me...

"Can you point out to me which aspect of the Athanasian Creed is not orthodox Christian belief?"

It looks to me that all of what the Athanasian Creed states is considered "orthodox" or "right teaching" by most Christian religions. But does that fact automatically mean that therefore everything the Creed states is "Christian belief"? I

It seems reasonable to me that it what that Creed states is Christian belief then I'll find what it states in the Christian Bible. And there are parts of it that I have found in the Bible...

"One Christ
Who suffered for our salvation, descended into hell,
rose again the third day from the dead.
He ascended into heaven, he sitteth at the right hand of the Father,
God Almighty, from whence he will come
to judge the quick and the dead.
At whose coming all men will rise again with their bodies
and shall give account for their own works.
And they that have done good shall go into life
everlasting; and they that have done evil into everlasting fire."

But that's about all I could find so far. Everything else seems to have simply come from the reasoning of someone by the name of Athanasia.

Don,

I know you have a lot on your plate as you're being bombarded from all sides but I thought it important to clarify a few thing about the Athanasian creed.

First, it wasn't Athanasia who wrote it (Athanasia wrote in Greek, the oldest form of the creed found was written in Latin). But that's besides the point really.

Second, the creed wasn't written to formulate the doctrine of the trinity but rather to affirm it as many other heretical doctrines had crept up.

Here are a few quotes (from the following link on the subject):

Trinity
What does it mean to say Jesus is in the Father and the Father in Him? The Scriptures reveal and the church came to accept and to teach that the Father, the Son and the Holy Spirit are one, and yet distinct. The first half of the Athanasian Creed sets this out in elaborate (almost painful) detail. It is possible to fall from this path in many places.

Some err by asserting that Christ is not divine. This makes Christianity idolatrous as many have accused it of being. But also it means that Jesus is simply one of us, He is no more able to save than we are. He could be a good example (but, since in this case he had decieved people, he would not be a very good example). He could certainly not be the Saviour.

Or, suppose you assert that there are three deities; three Gods called Father, Son and Spirit. (This is Arianism.) If this were so, how can the Son be the Saviour? The Saviour must be one with the Father because 'none other could create anew the likeness of God's image for me except the Image of the Father, none could render the mortal immortal except the Lord Jesus Christ who is Life itself' (Athanasius : The Incarnation 20.1)


Suppose, in contrast, you assert that God is One and that the Father, the Son and the Holy Spirit, are merely manifestations of the One God. (There are many variations on this theme including Monarchianism and Sabellianism.) This view makes a mockery of the language of scripture and was condemned in the early Church because it means that God suffered and died on the cross. But it also presents us with a God who we cannot truly know because He is first one thing and then another. Each encounter is with a character, a persona, not with the real thing. Moreover, the love of the Father for the Son becomes simply love of self.

The Athanasian Creed teaches forcefully and at great length that we worship one God in three Persons.

Two natures
What are we then to conclude about Jesus, if He is truly divine, the Son of God, in what way is He human? This is dealt with in the second half of the Athanasian Creed.

If Jesus is not human at all then how can He save us? Since He cannot represent us, He is not the second Adam. If Jesus is human and divine in what way do the human and divine come together in Him?

Perhaps the eternal Son takes over and replaces part of the human being in the union. The chief theory in this camp being that the divine mind replaced the human one (Appolinarianism). But the resulting being is less than human, He is not one of us. How can the divine mind have truly known temptation? He cannot save us. Moreover, this view encourages people to think that the human mind is not important in salvation.

A further view is that in the incarnation the divine and human nature become merely one nature (Eutychianism). However, this means that salvation does not involve the saving of human nature, but its destruction. This view rears its head in many forms of mysticism both ancient and modern.

Through this minefield the Athanasian Creed treads upholding that there is in Christ 'perfect God, and perfect Man', 'yet he is not two, but one Christ.'

The only Saviour
The argument of the Christians in the early centuries was that all these alternative views were not just inadequate, but that they were contrary to Scripture and that they changed the nature and fact of salvation. Therefore, to assert some of the alternatives is to actually trust in a being who is not able to save and, in fact, does not exist.

If the Lord Jesus Christ is not God, the eternal Son of God, fully man and fully divine, as the catholic faith asserts Him to be, then He is not able to save us. To deny and to turn away from this truth is therefore to deny the very grounds of our salvation and so we cannot be saved.

Therefore, although the language of the Creed is strong and perhaps unpalatable to modern Christians, the Creeds reminds us of truths which we must not forget; we can only be saved because our faith rests on a Saviour who is able to save; the Lord Jesus Christ who is in the Father, and the Father in Him.

A saviour who is able to save. Please remember this one when you respond to my last post (at the top of this page).

[Judah]

Thanks for that extra info, Byblos.

I had posted a little about the creed...

Some general information pertaining to the Athanasian Creed for those interested...

Also know as the "Quicumque vult", it is one of the four authoritative Creeds of the Roman Catholic Church but the Anglican Church and some Protestant Churches (such as Lutherans) also hold it to be authoritative.
It is considered a good orthodox summation of the doctrine of the Trinity and has been widely used in worship, especially in the west.
While the Creed has always been attributed to St. Athanasius (d 373 AD) who was famous for defending Christian orthodoxy against the heresy of Arianism, it was unknown in the Eastern Churches until the 12th century and thus it is unlikely he is the author.
St. Ambrose is one suggested author, but many authors have been proposed with no conclusive agreements reached.
Current theory suggests it was composed in southern France in the 5th century. In 1940, the lost 'Excerpta' of St. Vincent of Lerins (flourished in 440: "quod ubique, quod semper, quod ab omnibus creditum est") was discovered, and this work contains much of the language of the Creed. Thus, either St. Vincent, or an admirer have been suggested as the author.
The earliest known copy of the creed was included in a prefix to a collection of homilies by Caesarius of Arles (died 542).

...but your link gives a much clearer picture of its purpose.

Don, it does seem like we are all bombarding you at once.
I wont add to that except to say I would also like to see your response to the question that PL has asked twice in posts above. I think that is an important one. And Byblos's previous one too.
You're going to need a vacation after visiting here!

[DonCameron]

Hi FFC,

After quoting 1 Corinthians 8:5,6 where Paul said that God is just one single Person ("God the Father"), you said...

"And what part of any of that negates the truth of the trinity clearly revealed in scripture?"

All I can say is how what Paul said effects me. And that is... When he said that God is only one Person, I conclude therefore that God is not three Persons. When Paul excludes Jesus and the Holy Spirit when identifying who God is then I exclude them too.

But I have to wonder how I would have reacted to what Paul said if I believed ahead of time that "the Trinity is clearly revealed in Scripture." Would I be able to simply stop believing that God is Triune just because of what Paul said to the Corinthians? Maybe not.

I remember when I was a Witness before I was ready to face the possibility that the Watchtower Society might not be what I thought it was - "God's organization." There wasn't anything I read, inside or outside the Bible, that could change my mind. But once I did reach the point where I had to know the truth even if it meant that the Society was not God's organization, it didn't take very long to discover that it wasn't.

I've had it proved to me more than once that it is not just the evidence we come across that enables us to believe what we believe. There has to be a willingness to face the reality of what the evidence means.

If God is 3 Persons then I'm going to have to be willing to face that reality before I'll be able to see it no matter how clearly the Bible teaches it. But I feel the same holds true if God is just 1 Person. Those who believe that He is 3 Persons will have to be willing to face that reality before they will be able to see it no matter clearly the Bible says that God is just 1 Person.

And so again, this is where I feel 2 Timothy 2:25,26 comes in. In order for those who misunderstand what the Bible is teaching, God is going to have to intervene in order for them to "come to a knowledge the truth and come back to their proper senses."

As all of us have seen, no matter how hard we are trying to help each other see things the way we see them, we haven't' been able to do it on our own. It appears to me we don't have the necessary power that will cause someone to change their way of looking at this matter. I get the feeling that it will take the power of God's Holy Spirit to do so.

Don

[Turgonian]

Don, you didn't quote I Cor. 8:6 completely. It says, '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 live.'
Now, am I to understand that God the Father is not my Lord? After all, it clearly states our only Lord is Jesus Christ. (And is it therefore impossible to have lords on earth?) Or is Paul not attacking the doctrine of the Trinity, but of idols? Taken in context (i.e. the preceding verse), this would seem to be the case.

As people have said, the substance of God is one. This is why we find that many attributes of God the Father are also attributed to Christ and the Holy Spirit. See here. A sample:

- YHVH is called omnipotent (I Chron. 29:11), and so is Jesus (Phil. 3:20-21).
- YHVH is called omniscient (I John 3:20), and so is Jesus (Col. 2:2-3).
- YHVH is called omnipresent (Prov. 15:3), and so is Jesus (II Cor. 2:14).
- YHVH is the Lord of the Sabbath (Gen. 2:3), and so Jesus calls Himself (Matt. 12:8).
- YHVH is the I AM (Ex. 3:14), and so is Jesus (John 8:58).
- YHVH is the only Creator (Isa. 44:24), and so is Jesus (John 1:3).
- YHVH is the only Saviour (Isa. 43:11, 45:21), and so is Jesus (Acts 4:12).
- YHVH let His way be prepared by 'one crying in the wilderness' (Isa. 40:3), and the same goes for Jesus (Matt. 3:3).
- YHVH has all authority and power (Psa. 68:35), and so has Jesus (Luke 9:1).

There are many more.

[DonCameron]

Hi John,

I have a question about "The Only Saviour" article you provided where it states...

If the Lord Jesus Christ is not God, the eternal Son of God, fully man and fully divine...He is not able to save us."

My question is, Why? Why would Jesus have to be God or "the eternal Son of God" or "fully man and fully divine" in order to be our Saviour?

At the end of the article it says...

"We can only be saved because our faith rests on a Saviour who is able to save; the Lord Jesus Christ who is in the Father, and the Father in Him."

I agree with that statement. But why is Jesus only able to save us if he is everything the above statement says he must be. Have you seen where the Bible says these are the requirements in order for Jesus to qualify as our Saviour?

Don
P.S. If I'm missing answering some questions please remind me what they are.

[puritan lad]

Don,

Here is one reason.

"I, I am the LORD (Jehovah), and besides me there is no savior." (Isaiah 43:11)